The Gaming Den

Maybe they should just set up roadblocks and check everyone for a valid drivers license like they currently do for DUI. When licenses are renewed, you need to bring in a notarized US birth certificate, passport, or suitable notarized proof of citizenship/"legal to be in country document" or you get no license.

If they extended this to state-issued picture ID for non-drivers, it could be used at the polls as well to show residency. That would meet the law and not profile anyone, wouldn't it?

fbmf wrote:And if they had said, "You can't understand me because you didn't just cast detect thoughts", I would agree.

They said I couldn't do it BECAUSE I AM A WHITE MAN.

Well, A leads to B, so no. You can't do A, and you aren't B (the other way to know) so no, you wouldn't have the experience.

They would have said the same thing if you were a purple hermaphroditic gastropod, too. Assuming purple hermaphroditic gastropods do not experience this thing they're referring to.

Of course you can be racist to whites, or those in power. But slurs against the majority power are not going to be it.

-Crissa

PS, Zinegata never did actually prove that Democrats/leftists don't speak out when faced with racism targeted at groups that don't vote Democratic. He did show that some asian groups don't vote Democratic. But neither do Cubans, and I don't recall Democrats not defending Cubans against racism.

How could it be hypocritical? Heck, I can find Democrats defending Palin for slurs against her being a woman. What The Hell. Is there the reverse? Republicans defending Clinton against sexism slurs? Or any Democratic woman or Democratic person from an oppressed group?

stupid markup

Crissa->

You're such a racist. Why do you seperate Asians by their voting preferences? Why can't you just accept that as the Wikipedia article clearly stated, that Asians in fact do have diffused voting preferences and don't favor one party over another.

Instead, they vote based on issues and candidates.

But instead of seeing them as a diverse group of people, you have to go all racist on them, call Vietnamese-Americans slurs like Hmongs and Republican-voters.

Again, God loves you Crissa. It is not yet too late to repent your sins.

LL: Except we need to have exceptions for students, tourists, truck drivers, diplomats, foreign workers, etc. And it needs not violate one of the rights in the constitution, the freedom of movement.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:LL: Except we need to have exceptions for students, tourists, truck drivers, diplomats, foreign workers, etc. And it needs not violate one of the rights in the constitution, the freedom of movement.

-Crissa

All of those people can get drunk. Even diplomats can be arrested or DUI. They just can't be prosecuted.

Crissa wrote:LL: Except we need to have exceptions for students, tourists, truck drivers, diplomats, foreign workers, etc. And it needs not violate one of the rights in the constitution, the freedom of movement.

-Crissa

Yeah my idea is not what I would call "fully formed". It was just a thought to eliminate the perception that the law will be enforced on the basis of race alone. It is probably a crappy idea *shrug*

Zinegata, you're still being stupid. It doesn't matter how badly someone wants a job; if you're not allowed to hire them then you fucking CAN'T.

Count's proposal was to target employers. Make it really fucking painful for them to hire illegal immigrants. If you make the fines high enough and also enforce it, employers don't have an incentive to hire people who will work at cut wages. It's not worth hiring someone who will work for cents on the dollar if it means that you end up losing millions of dollars once you get found out.

Employers don't have to hire the person who works for slave wages. Oh sure, they really want to--they'd be a fool not too. But you're taking the phrase 'they took our jobs!' too literally. Nothing obligates employers to give illegal immigrants a job once they're around. And if they actually had enough of a law to fear they won't give out said jobs.

Zinegata wrote: Not to mention there is about no fucking way you can implement a "full pay even to illegals" law.

What? I never said that. That's a terrible idea. It doesn't even work in the first place because hiring illegal immigrants is illegal anyway. How would the law even make sure that companies are paying full wages to people who aren't allowed here in the first place? That's madness.

I'm against illegal immigration because it creates downwards pressure on wages that screws over citizens in the short run and the illegal immigrant in the long run. I think that the immigration spigot needs to be much higher than it is right now for unrelated reasons, but the fact of the matter is that short of militarization of the borders the only way to eliminate downwards pressure on wages is to prevent employers from being able to skirt the laws in the first place.

Go stuff your straw man up your ass.

Zinegata wrote: Honestly, Count was polite so I didn't say this to him.

For all the good it did him. He's saying the exact same things to you that I'm saying now and you ignored him and are spewing the same shit as before. So I'm being ruder, because you're too dense to accept civility.

Don't worry, Count, Lago's got your back!

Crissa wrote:And this is some of the shit that doctors say, which is ridiculous. Cells don't have sex.

Shut up. Yes they do. You can convert any cell into a stem cell and grow any organ from it or even a whole body. Every cell has a sex. Some people have intersexed cells. And by "some" I mean about 1 in 500. It varies by region.

But the big point here is that the moment you're in there saying that science is wrong because the objective truth doesn't fit your preconceptions, you're no better than Zinegata. Suck it up: you're wrong. Cells have a biological sex. It does not change no matter what you do to it. I don't even know why you are fighting this fact, since it is completely orthogonal to your actual demand that transgendered people get respectful treatment.

RC wrote:The problem is that we don't really care about gender as a society. When someone asks you "are you a boy or a girl?" they're wondering what your sex is, not your gender. I honestly can't imagine any place where anyone would ask what your gender is without actually meaning sex.

That is... exactly wrong. The fact is, almost no one gives a second thought to what chromosomes people have. If someone pretties themselves up, runs around in a dress, uses established female accents and uses characteristically female mannerisms, they are "female." Because their gender is female. They could be XX, XY, XXX, XXY, or whatever. Underneath their dress they could have a vagina, a penis, or both, and since the vast majority of people will never see it, it really makes no difference.

Lots of people freak out when they find out that someone who is a female gender actually has a penis, or has malformed genitals that are in between a clitoris and a penis, or whatever. This is because there is a general assumption that sex follows gender in immutable categories. This assumption is complete horse shit, but lots of people make it.

But yes, people see someone who "looks and acts" like a female is "supposed to" in the context of their own society and they ascribe that person as "female." This is them reacting to gender, not to sex. In a culture that stresses monogamy, a person's sex is almost no one's business anyway.

Zinegata wrote:Not to mention there is about no fucking way you can implement a "full pay even to illegals" law. Because how can an illegal immigrat complain that they're not fully paid? The moment they do, they'll get fucking deported.

This is an example of why Arizona's system won't work. Not why Count's system won't work. If you take a hard-ball approach to minor crime, it makes it harder to investigate major crime. You don't prosecute murder witnesses for jay walking.

If you treat labor violations as a big crime and lack of papers as a small crime, you'll get much better prosecution rates of labor violations. If major employers risk large fines and even jail time for paying below-mandated wages, then the big firms simply won't do it. And then the incentives to hire illegals will go away and the number of "slots" for illegals will be reduced.

People follow incentives pretty well. The fact is that the incentives for illegal immigration are mostly at the firms level. If clamp down on them, the immigration stream will stop flowing. That you can't see that is proof positive that you have no faith or understanding in the free market. And if you don't understand or acknowledge the capabilities of the free market, you are the last person qualified to prognosticate the effects of any policy of or in the United States.

-Username17

Lich-Loved, I split my reply to you from your last post because you don't deserve to have a reply lumped in with that toolbag.

LL wrote: Maybe they should just set up roadblocks and check everyone for a valid drivers license like they currently do for DUI. When licenses are renewed, you need to bring in a notarized US birth certificate, passport, or suitable notarized proof of citizenship/"legal to be in country document" or you get no license.

You're not seeing the forest from the trees here. While your proposal would stop an individual from staying here and illegally competing for wages, how much does it do about the masses? Many illegal immigrants who become illegal enter the U.S. legally; they just end up violating one of the terms of their stay. While eventually these people would be sent back to their country they would just end up getting replaced by another worker.

Ultimately it doesn't do much towards eliminating the downwards pressure of wages. I don't see an employer caring much whether the person they hired was in the country illegally for two weeks or two years; and as long as there is an incentive for them to come over for jobs that pay twice what they do in Mexico they still will. You're affecting faces, not numbers.

Still, Frank, if you change the settings in the environment of your cell growth, it doesn't matter what sex the original cell was. You could plausibly get any part from any cell's DNA (although we cannot do that yet); but this would also include using a woman's DNA and growing testes. Because gonads are triggered by hormones, not DNA. So no, cells don't have sex as living creatures do. They have potential, but not fate. Just because you have a cell with an XY or XX doesn't mean it couldn't be used to grow the parts associated with the other sex.

You're right about the rest, of course, and my argument is otherwise too simple to have expressed it as well as you did.

Lich-Loved wrote:Yeah my idea is not what I would call "fully formed". It was just a thought to eliminate the perception that the law will be enforced on the basis of race alone. It is probably a crappy idea *shrug*

Yeah, and the state-level cannot do it legally. California and other states have tried this, and been pushed back in court; and feds aren't supposed to stop people from traveling inside states nor between states.

And as it's really a pain in the ass. Since I got caught up in that net, I have to spent inordinate amounts of time at the DMV, and they still lost it, over ten years later - when they had my address correctly in their system this time.

-Crissa

Zinegata wrote: Geography has nothing to do with it. Politics does. And on the immigration issue, the race card is played not to make things fair for everyone. It's played to keep Hispanics happy and make them continue voting Dems.

Zinegata, all representatives/parties in a democracy have groups that they 'pander' to. That's the purpose of democracy. Duh.

The fact that they 'pander' or 'play a card for' the group doesn't mean jack shit. All you can do is look at the individual proposal and judge those merits. When you say stupid shit like 'oh, the Democrats are just trying to keep the gays/blacks happy' like that's supposed to be some bad thing in of itself you highlight your own profound ignorance of government.

Democrats want to deal with illegal immigration. It IS a huge problem, not just morally but also internally--after all Democrats do represent unions. It's an objective problem, not some fake one like Flag Burning; but illegal immigration has more dysfunctions associated with it than just downward pressure of wages. And Democrats also want to solve these problems too. The Democratic solution for this is to go after business owners. Their proposal will dry up the motivation for illegal labor without doing things like harassing people of the wrong color of skin. Amazingly, Latinos (and other minorities) will appreciate an approach to problem-solving that doesn't involve scapegoating--which is more than I can say for the other party.

The Republican party doesn't want to solve things they way they do; their proposal will not work. They know it won't. But they will pursue this path anyway. Because they simultaneously represent working-class whites AND business owners, they generally float proposals such as 'securing' the border even though they know it's a costly waste of money that won't really do jack. So why do they do that? It's to pander to their base, who perceives illegal immigrants as putting downward pressure on wages--which is true and does need to be fixed. But they don't want to piss off their other constituency of business owners who actually love the unfair competition of wages. It's an emotional quick-fix that appears to solve the problem for retards like you without actually hurting the bottom line. Sort of like a security blanket.

So are both groups pandering? Yes. Is pandering a priori bad? No. Are some forms of pandering good and humane and other forms of pandering evil and unjust? Fuck yes.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Zinegata, you're still being stupid. It doesn't matter how badly someone wants a job; if you're not allowed to hire them then you fucking CAN'T.

*facepalm*

That's not Count's position.

His position is to equalize the pay and benefits of illegals with legals. Because this will disourage employers from hiring illegals. His post to me was:

Zinegata:

Or, we could make it legal to hire illegal immigrants, and have it mandated by law that they receive the same benefits as citizens.

You merely agree on the "crack down on the source" part. I'll be generous and at least point out Count said this way back on page 3, so maybe you just missed it.

You have no fucking idea what Count's position is, do you?

Count's proposal was to target employers. Make it really fucking painful for them to hire illegal immigrants. If you make the fines high enough and also enforce it, employers don't have an incentive to hire people who will work at cut wages. It's not worth hiring someone who will work for cents on the dollar if it means that you end up losing millions of dollars once you get found out.

Yes, it targets employers. But Count's position was not by fines. Read his post.

And it's still fucking retarded. Because generally labor issues are brought up by the workers. Which illegals can't do because they'll get fucking deported.

So to implement this, you'd have to do spot-checks for every business in the country on the off chance they may be hiring illegals. And hope the illegals don't simply run off during the inspection so they aren't deported.

That's probably gonna be less effective and more expensive than putting fucking tanks on the border.

So go and tell Count that it's a terrible idea instead of me, okay? You have his back anyway, don't you?

FrankTrollman wrote:This is an example of why Arizona's system won't work.

*hits Frank's skull with a bat for not reading*

I already said the Arizona law won't work.

I'm just supporting it as a fuck-you to illegal immigrants who are shafting legal ones.

People follow incentives pretty well. The fact is that the incentives for illegal immigration are mostly at the firms level. If clamp down on them, the immigration stream will stop flowing. That you can't see that is proof positive that you have no faith or understanding in the free market. And if you don't understand or acknowledge the capabilities of the free market, you are the last person qualified to prognosticate the effects of any policy of or in the United States.

-Username17

Frank, the problem is that policing firms to not hire illegals is gonna be incredibly hard. So instead of guarding the border, you're gonna go to every mom & pop store in the country and see if they have an illegal immigrant worker?

Especially when the illegals themselves have an incentive to run and hide when the labor-law inspection team arrives. They're gonna get fucking DEPORTED even if they rat on their employers and get them fined.

If you want to stop illegal immigration, you need to make illegal immigration less profitable for *everyone*. Which means making it easier to get into the United States legally (meaning a sane worker/green card program). And making it harder to get into the country illegally (more guys on the border).

No Crissa, the fact that there are XX females who have testes due to teratogenic effects in no way means that they are biologically male.

-Username17

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Zinegata, all representatives/parties in a democracy have groups that they 'pander' to. That's the purpose of democracy. Duh.

The fact that they 'pander' or 'play a card for' the group doesn't mean jack shit. All you can do is look at the individual proposal and judge those merits. When you say stupid shit like 'oh, the Democrats are just trying to keep the gays/blacks happy' like that's supposed to be some bad thing in of itself you highlight your own profound ignorance of government.

Democrats want to deal with illegal immigration. It IS a huge problem, not just morally but also internally--after all Democrats do represent unions. It's an objective problem, not some fake one like Flag Burning; but illegal immigration has more dysfunctions associated with it than just downward pressure of wages. And Democrats also want to solve these problems too. The Democratic solution for this is to go after business owners. Their proposal will dry up the motivation for illegal labor without doing things like harassing people of the wrong color of skin. Amazingly, Latinos (and other minorities) will appreciate an approach to problem-solving that doesn't involve scapegoating--which is more than I can say for the other party.

The Republican party doesn't want to solve things they way they do; their proposal will not work. They know it won't. But they will pursue this path anyway. Because they simultaneously represent working-class whites AND business owners, they generally float proposals such as 'securing' the border even though they know it's a costly waste of money that won't really do jack. So why do they do that? It's to pander to their base, who perceives illegal immigrants as putting downward pressure on wages--which is true and does need to be fixed. But they don't want to piss off their other constituency of business owners who actually love the unfair competition of wages. It's an emotional quick-fix that appears to solve the problem for retards like you without actually hurting the bottom line. Sort of like a security blanket.

So are both groups pandering? Yes. Is pandering a priori bad? No. Are some forms of pandering good and humane and other forms of pandering evil and unjust? Fuck yes.

Okay, that's a saner way to put it than Crissa's "But Democrats play the race card for Asian-Americans too! Look how Honda trashed Glenn Beck for daring to mention Pearl Harbor!".

But I'm pandering to Filipino-Americans so I'd still want bigger quotas for legal immigrants

FrankTrollman wrote:No Crissa, the fact that there are XX females who have testes due to teratogenic effects in no way means that they are biologically male.

Why not? They act, look, and function as male.

-Crissa

Zinegata wrote:
Yes, it targets employers. But Count's position was not by fines. Read his post.

His position is to equalize the pay and benefits of illegals with legals. Because this will disourage employers from hiring illegals. His post to me was:

Zinegata, fuck you. For two reasons. No, Count didn't specifically mention enacting fines but it's very clear he meant some kind of legally punitive outcome. He could have also meant throwing employers of illegal immigrants into jail or lining them up and shooting them. Whatever. The point is that he said that employers need to have a reason to not hire illegal immigrants.

Second of all, illegal immigration has other problems associated with it other than 'they took our jobs!', which can't just be solved by removing the employer's attraction to hiring illegal immigrants. This would normally be the point where I would expound upon those problems but I have low faith in you understanding them. If anyone besides Zinegata wants me to, I will. This offer extends to you, too, Josh, you fucknut.

Count wrote:
Let me try this one more time, maybe you will read what I said this time.

There is one AND EXACTLY ONE reason why illegals get jobs here: because illegals work cheap and don't snitch their bosses out when forced to work in inhumane conditions.

If you take the ability of employers to do that, you take the one reason to hire illegals.

Why would you hire someone who doesn't speak English, in many cases are illiterate in Spanish as well, who doesn't know the customs, who usually doesn't have the education and skills of a native born person if you couldn't pay them slave wages and work them to death?

You wouldn't. There wouldn't be "jobs waiting for illegals",there wouldn't be jobs for them at all.

Take away the reason employers have for hiring illegals, and no one hires them. Then they need a more compelling reason to come here other than work. Also, you put the burden onto employers in making sure they follow all laws and all of a sudden you have every employer in the country working for you without ever doing anything.

Take away the demand for illegal labor, and there won't be as many illegal immigrants.

It really is that simple.

I'm saying the exact same thing Count said to you. It is indeed nothing new.

Now, back to the stupider stuff. I split this up because I want to make it very clear for anyone reading our boards just how much of a creepy wanker Zinegata is.

Zinegata wrote: I'm just supporting it as a fuck-you to illegal immigrants who are shafting legal ones.

You know this makes you a huge fucker, right? Not a charming or amusing fucker, but the kind of creepy fucker who gets off to things like hurricane Katrina.

So to implement this, you'd have to do spot-checks for every business in the country on the off chance they may be hiring illegals. And hope the illegals don't simply run off during the inspection so they aren't deported.

God, there's so much stupid in this. I don't know where to begin...

Okay, first of all law enforcement does not have to have continual spot checks of every suspect in order to be effective. Yes, during the crackdown phase when people initially resist your law you need to have more law enforcement. But the ultimate destination of any successful law is that you don't HAVE to monitor people 24/7. This isn't just true for illegal immigration but ANY law where the crime has a high chance of going unnoticed.

Second of all, it doesn't fucking matter in the long run whether the illegal immigrants run off once law cracks down on their business. If it gets to the point where no other business wants to hire said illegal immigrants then they can just go pound sand and go home. The important thing is that their motivation for staying in the country illegally goes away.

That's probably gonna be less effective and more expensive than putting fucking tanks on the border.

Third of all:

Heh! Good one!

Oh, wait, is this guy for serious.

Do I even need to respond to this buffoonery? I'm just going to assume that Zinegata was exaggerating and he meant something like INF. If he really means to use this level of militarism to secure the border then I have a much more mocking reply, but if he just got in the heat of the shitbag moment I'll let it slide. Just this once. Daddy Lago can understand people needing their hate-medicine.

So go and tell Count that it's a terrible idea instead of me, okay? You have his back anyway, don't you?

My idea is the same as his. I don't know what's your reluctance to bash his idea, since he's the originator of it. Probably hate-induced stupidity.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Now, back to the stupider stuff. I split this up because I want to make it very clear for anyone reading our boards just how much of a creepy wanker Zinegata is.

Nope, you're splitting it off because you got humiliated. Because you had a huge rant against me and "protecting" Count...

When in fact you had no idea what we were both talking about. You even called Count's complete position stupid in no uncertain terms:

That's a terrible idea. It doesn't even work in the first place because hiring illegal immigrants is illegal anyway. How would the law even make sure that companies are paying full wages to people who aren't allowed here in the first place? That's madness.

Thus you, in effect, completely agreed with my position.

So congratulations for joining your own "creepy wankers" club.

Okay, first of all law enforcement does not have to have continual spot checks of every suspect in order to be effective. Yes, during the crackdown phase when people initially resist your law you need to have more law enforcement. But the ultimate destination of any successful law is that you don't HAVE to monitor people 24/7. This isn't just true for illegal immigration but ANY law where the crime has a high chance of going unnoticed.

Second of all, it doesn't fucking matter in the long run whether the illegal immigrants run off once law cracks down on their business. If it gets to the point where no other business wants to hire said illegal immigrants then they can just go pound sand and go home. The important thing is that their motivation for staying in the country illegally goes away.

I still do not see how you can implement the law.

Who will report businesses who hire illegals?

Certainly not the businesses. They'd get fined.

Certainly not the illegals. They'd get deported.

You haven't shown how the law could work aside from scaring business owners. But if nobody ever reports it happening then no one will get caught, and no one will be scared of it.

For a law to be enforced, people have to report a crime, or the police have to actively clamp down on the crime. The former ain't gonna happen. The latter is gonna be expensive.

Third of all:

Heh! Good one!

Oh, wait, is this guy for serious.

No, you're a moron. I wasn't serious. Tanks on the border are expensive and do not deter illegal immigration.

Though tanks on the border would LOOK cool.

Still, using military units as a stop-gap before beefing up the border patrol is a valid option.

My idea is the same as his. I don't know what's your reluctance to bash his idea, since he's the originator of it. Probably hate-induced stupidity.

No, you're a fucking idiot who's covering up the fact that you came barging in this thread like an asshole and got half the conversation wrong.

Your only point of agreement with Count is targetting the businesses. Which is not stupid, just not implementable. But a very, very large part of your rant was against giving illegal immigrants equal labor benefits anyway, and the rest I'm refuting now as an illogical pipe dream.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

Zinegata wrote:
Yes, it targets employers. But Count's position was not by fines. Read his post.

His position is to equalize the pay and benefits of illegals with legals. Because this will disourage employers from hiring illegals. His post to me was:

Zinegata, fuck you. For two reasons. No, Count didn't specifically mention enacting fines but it's very clear he meant some kind of legally punitive outcome.

Fines go to the government. Pay and benefits go to the workers.

Again, hugely different. And now I won't be generous.

You got humiliated. And instead of manning up to it you're being a fucking baby and you're trying claim fines and wages are the same.

Which is probably why you intentionally left out Count's own words:

Or, we could make it legal to hire illegal immigrants, and have it mandated by law that they receive the same benefits as citizens.

Nothing in his statement indicates the use of fines. At all. Again, your only point of commonality is "target the businesses and kill the source of employment".

The truth is, you're a lying shit left-wing tool who places ideology over rationality. And your "crusade" against me ended up smashing itself in the face with its opening volley because you did not fucking read.

It's fun being a centrist in a board full of extremists.

When in fact you had no idea what we were both talking about. You even called Count's complete position stupid and claimed that _I_ said it.

I don't know what this means and neither do you.

I'll post Count's rant again. Because I love you. Emphasis mine.

Let me try this one more time, maybe you will read what I said this time.

There is one AND EXACTLY ONE reason why illegals get jobs here: because illegals work cheap and don't snitch their bosses out when forced to work in inhumane conditions.

If you take the ability of employers to do that, you take the one reason to hire illegals.

Why would you hire someone who doesn't speak English, in many cases are illiterate in Spanish as well, who doesn't know the customs, who usually doesn't have the education and skills of a native born person if you couldn't pay them slave wages and work them to death?

You wouldn't. There wouldn't be "jobs waiting for illegals",there wouldn't be jobs for them at all.

Take away the reason employers have for hiring illegals, and no one hires them. Then they need a more compelling reason to come here other than work. Also, you put the burden onto employers in making sure they follow all laws and all of a sudden you have every employer in the country working for you without ever doing anything.

Take away the demand for illegal labor, and there won't be as many illegal immigrants.

It really is that simple.

Zinegata wrote: I still do not see how you can implement the law.

Gee! If there was only some way the law enforcement could check into the annals of business! Something like... like... an audit. Things like making sure that the business is hiring real legal immigrants and cross-checking them against social security databases and income tax returns. Maybe they could even get the oh-so-concerned citizen workers who are concerned about downward pressure on wages to point them in the right direction of companies who hire illegal immigrants. Sigh. I guess magical things will only exist in the realm of our imagination.

No, you're a moron. I wasn't serious.

So you were just joking about overt displays of your tiny penis military force? Why don't I believe you, Mr. 'Blacks and Mexicans need to shut up.'.

Zinegata wrote: Your only point of agreement with Count is targetting the businesses.

What's this 'only' shit?

Which is not stupid, just not implementabe.

Keep telling yourself that. Anything to wank off to your fantasies of hurting underpaid illegal immigrants and being in one of the 'good' racial minorities I suppose.

But the majority of your rant was against giving illegal immigrants equal labor benefits.

I don't support that, because it's impossible to give illegal immigrants equal labor benefits. AFAIK neither does Count, but I don't care what he thinks beyond that. I do know that our underlying solution to deal with the illegal immigrant problem do indeed match up.

Zinegata wrote:Fines go to the government. Pay and benefits go to the workers.

Again, hugely different. And now I won't be generous.

You got humiliated. And instead of manning up to it you're being a fucking baby and you're trying claim fines and wages are the same.

Whuuuuuuuuhhh??

Employers should be prevented from hiring illegal immigrants. Like any other law, there are many ways to enforce compliance. Fines are typically the best way for a variety of reasons, but you can also use harsher like jail-time.

Unless Count has no idea how a law system works, when he says that we must remove the incentive for employers to hire illegal immigrants he most certainly means applying punitive measures to people who do such a thing.

That's it. I have no idea where you got the shit about wages and pay from.



Zinegata, pumpkin, you need to take a break from boarding with the big boys for the rest of your life a few days. The stress from performing is causing you to descend into a crazy spiral, making you see arguments that aren't there.

Here, bask in the healing glow of Frank's wisdom for awhile. I know you just ignored him with a 'lolz only want to wank to illegal immigrants getting theirs'. But his reply is a distilled form of a tl;dr version of what me and Count were saying.

FT wrote: This is an example of why Arizona's system won't work. Not why Count's system won't work. If you take a hard-ball approach to minor crime, it makes it harder to investigate major crime. You don't prosecute murder witnesses for jay walking.

If you treat labor violations as a big crime and lack of papers as a small crime, you'll get much better prosecution rates of labor violations. If major employers risk large fines and even jail time for paying below-mandated wages, then the big firms simply won't do it. And then the incentives to hire illegals will go away and the number of "slots" for illegals will be reduced.

People follow incentives pretty well. The fact is that the incentives for illegal immigration are mostly at the firms level. If clamp down on them, the immigration stream will stop flowing. That you can't see that is proof positive that you have no faith or understanding in the free market. And if you don't understand or acknowledge the capabilities of the free market, you are the last person qualified to prognosticate the effects of any policy of or in the United States.

-Username17

Lago PARANOIA wrote:I don't know what this means and neither do you.

Nope, I know exactly what Count was talking about. Observe!

There is one AND EXACTLY ONE reason why illegals get jobs here: because illegals work cheap and don't snitch their bosses out when forced to work in inhumane conditions.

If you take the ability of employers to do that, you take the one reason to hire illegals.

My first response to you included the following words:

You merely agree on the "crack down on the source" part.

"Crack down on the source" and "Take the ability of employers to do that" are equivalent, not like "fines" and "benefits"

Fine = Stick. Benefits = Carrot. They are not the same.

Gee! If there was only some way the law enforcement could check into the annals of business! Something like... like... an audit.

Right. Businesses will have a line item for expenses marked "Joe the Illegal Immigrant Gardener" as opposed to say "Contracted Expenses" or "Petty Cash" that you will have to track down using your army of non-existent auditors.

Have you ever tried looking at the files of even a small business? Probably not, is my guess.

Maybe they could even get the oh-so-concerned citizen workers who are concerned about downward pressure on wages to point them in the right direction of companies who hire illegal immigrants. Sigh. I guess magical things will only exist in the realm of our imagination.

Right. You seriously think that lots of people will report Joe the Gardener because they want the gardening job?

AFAIK neither does Count, but I don't care what he thinks beyond that. I do know that our underlying solution to deal with the illegal immigrant problem do indeed match up.

Your quotes and his do not match.

You can claim it's the same as much as you want, but the fact is you ranted against Count's own post.

And that's the only reason why you're hurling insults at me. Because you're an asshole and a bully who got a bloody nose .

Stop being a baby and grow up.

What the fuck are 'equal labor benefits', anyhow?

-Crissa

Zinegata's argumet seems to be that laws are futile if it is plausible to evade them. Anyhow, like less than a fifth of US payroll comes from businesses under a hundred employees. Non-employers of the sort Zinegata seems to suggest only gross about three percent of the private reported receipts total of the US, so they're hardly an engine of the economy.

Lago, now you're really a lying shit. For the second time these are the Count's exact words.

From Count:

Or, we could make it legal to hire illegal immigrants, and have it mandated by law that they receive the same benefits as citizens.

It's pretty blatant what he said. Make it legal to hire illegal immigrants. Have it mandated by law they receive the same benefits.

Nothing about fining or punishing small businesses.

These are facts as opposed to your nonsensical flaming. Thank you for confirming to me and to every person here who's not a hack that you are indeed just an asshole who is whining because he jumped into a fight without knowing what it is about, and got humiliated.