Thread: NYT continues to keep giving -Day Laborers’ Rights

Crockett wrote:

If these day laborers had been poor white folks they would have been s.o.l. and the thing would have never made it to court.

No doubt! A lot of them would be in jail and it would have never made the paper.

Sorry Bquasius, but it is WRONG to allow millions of illegal aliens to hide behind the skirts of legal immigrants and U.S. citizens simply because they share the same ethnicity.

No one should be above the law in this (our) Republic. No one.

Originally Posted by bquasius

Originally Posted by JohnB2012

I thought we lived in an America where individuals are evaluated by the content of their character and not their ethnicity.

Urinating and fighting in public says a lot for their character.

Did I forgot to mention that in America individuals, even the humble day laborers, who are accused of breaking the law have trials, evidence, etc. before we make such a determination?

Judging someone's character is not the same as judging someone in court. You still haven't posted the links to your earlier quotes.

Again, for those of you who requested a link, her you go:

Decision:
http://www.prldef.org/Civil/mamaroneck.pdf

I'm still looking for some of you to post:
Hard statistics AND A SOURCE about the percentage of legal immigrants that aid and abet illegal immigration.
Statistics for the Mamaroneck day laborers immigration status
Source for claim that 98% of illegal immigrants are Latino; of which 90% are Mexican.

Originally Posted by bquasius

Again, for those of you who requested a link, her you go:

Decision:
http://www.prldef.org/Civil/mamaroneck.pdf

I'm still looking for some of you to post:
Hard statistics AND A SOURCE about the percentage of legal immigrants that aid and abet illegal immigration.
Statistics for the Mamaroneck day laborers immigration status
Source for claim that 98% of illegal immigrants are Latino; of which 90% are Mexican.

It's interesting that the decision repeatedly makes reference to the significance of the determination that the day laborers wer "residents," though it repeatedly makes clear that their immigration status is unknown. Generally speaking, a person cannot have "residency" status unless he or she is either a citizen of the US or a lawful visa holder. This makes the presumption of the one status without the verification of the other dubious at best. If I was an attorney for the city, I would look at this as an avenue for appeal.

I note that you have not responded to any of my comments relative to your posts.

Originally Posted by bquasius

Again, for those of you who requested a link, her you go:

Decision:
http://www.prldef.org/Civil/mamaroneck.pdf

I'm still looking for some of you to post:
Hard statistics AND A SOURCE about the percentage of legal immigrants that aid and abet illegal immigration.
Statistics for the Mamaroneck day laborers immigration status
Source for claim that 98% of illegal immigrants are Latino; of which 90% are Mexican.

Thanks for posting that link. Interesting read. Specifically concerning the day laborers though, I don't see a compelling case of discrimination. If the group was mixed and the police only picked on the latino laborers, that would be different. Anyway, looks like poor planning and execution by the city and police and poor legal advice on behalf of the plaintiffs, asking for the city to come up with a day labor center.

Originally Posted by greyparrot

Sorry Bquasius, but it is WRONG to allow millions of illegal aliens to hide behind the skirts of legal immigrants and U.S. citizens simply because they share the same ethnicity.

No one should be above the law in this (our) Republic. No one.

I absolutely agree! So then what makes the Village of Mamaroneck above the law?

I asked earlier for credible statistics about Latino legal immigrants or citizens aiding or abeting illegal immigration, but have yet to see any. Since you claim to have knowledge about this 'hiding behind skirts' phenomen, how about sharing the statistics with us?

Also, as I'm sure you're aware, aiding and abetting illegal immigration is a felony, and felonies require mandatory deportation of non-citizens with no exceptions, no waivers. So how many Latino citizens were convicted of aiding and abetting last year, and how many Latino immigrants were deported last year?

Please share us your factual basis for your conclusion about aiding and abetting. Be sure to share the source of your statistics, and give us something other than conjecture please. Thank you.

Originally Posted by bquasius

Originally Posted by greyparrot

Sorry Bquasius, but it is WRONG to allow millions of illegal aliens to hide behind the skirts of legal immigrants and U.S. citizens simply because they share the same ethnicity.

No one should be above the law in this (our) Republic. No one.

I absolutely agree! So then what makes the Village of Mamaroneck above the law?

I asked earlier for credible statistics about Latino legal immigrants or citizens aiding or abeting illegal immigration, but have yet to see any. Since you claim to have knowledge about this 'hiding behind skirts' phenomen, how about sharing the statistics with us?

Also, as I'm sure you're aware, aiding and abetting illegal immigration is a felony, and felonies require mandatory deportation of non-citizens with no exceptions, no waivers. So how many Latino citizens were convicted of aiding and abetting last year, and how many Latino immigrants were deported last year?

Please share us your factual basis for your conclusion about aiding and abetting. Be sure to share the source of your statistics, and give us something other than conjecture please. Thank you.

Wait a minute, buddy! Cities absolutely have the authority to regulate commercial activities within their limits. It is not that the city is above the law. Quite to the contrary, the city was acting well within generally accepted powers of regulation in shutting down a commercial activity that wa drawing complaints. In fact, the city had created the specific day labor area in question in the first place.

Methinks you have the ring of a troll, my friend. Your original posts supportive of immigration control increasingly are giving way to apologism for the illegals and their sympathizers.

Originally Posted by JohnB2012

Originally Posted by bquasius

Again, for those of you who requested a link, her you go:

Decision:
http://www.prldef.org/Civil/mamaroneck.pdf

I'm still looking for some of you to post:
Hard statistics AND A SOURCE about the percentage of legal immigrants that aid and abet illegal immigration.
Statistics for the Mamaroneck day laborers immigration status
Source for claim that 98% of illegal immigrants are Latino; of which 90% are Mexican.

Thanks for posting that link. Interesting read. Specifically concerning the day laborers though, I don't see a compelling case of discrimination. If the group was mixed and the police only picked on the latino laborers, that would be different. Anyway, looks like poor planning and execution by the city and police and poor legal advice on behalf of the plaintiffs, asking for the city to come up with a day labor center.

Thanks for taking time to read the decision. I have a hunch that 95+% of those on this forum criticizing the decision have never read it!

We're all still waiting for the source of your statistics, that 98% of illegal aliens are Latino and 90% of those Mexican...

The police picked on not only day laborers but Latinos who just happened to be there when the police were there, or driving by. There have been day laborers in the area for over 50 years, but predominately Latino in recent years.

White people engaging in the same activities weren't ticketed or bothered in any way, which the judge felt proved discriminatory treatment. Many contractors were ticketed for traffic offenses, but only while hiring a day laborer. The same offense while not hiring a day laborer didn't receive a ticket.

Selective enforcement of neutral laws against a particular ethnic or racial group is considered discrimination. Some of the comments, like comparisons to "locusts" likely clenched the case for discrimination.

The lack of relevance of their immigration status may in part have come down to what the police and town KNEW and didn't know. The town admitted NOT KNOWing the immigration status of the day workers or other Latinos they picked on, so it would be rather difficult for them to argue they were only picking on illegal immigrants and leaving legal immigrants and citizens alone. The only common thread was appearing to be Latino.

They harassed not only day laborers but other Latinos who just were using the park or driving by. Like one Latino sitting on a park bench before reporting to work. He wasn't a day laborer or breaking any law, unless one subscribes to the 'collective guilt' theory that all Latinos are responsible for the unlawful actions of some. Perhaps eating breakfast on a park bench might be illegal after all...

Originally Posted by bquasius

Originally Posted by JohnB2012

Originally Posted by bquasius

Again, for those of you who requested a link, her you go:

Decision:
http://www.prldef.org/Civil/mamaroneck.pdf

I'm still looking for some of you to post:
Hard statistics AND A SOURCE about the percentage of legal immigrants that aid and abet illegal immigration.
Statistics for the Mamaroneck day laborers immigration status
Source for claim that 98% of illegal immigrants are Latino; of which 90% are Mexican.

Thanks for posting that link. Interesting read. Specifically concerning the day laborers though, I don't see a compelling case of discrimination. If the group was mixed and the police only picked on the latino laborers, that would be different. Anyway, looks like poor planning and execution by the city and police and poor legal advice on behalf of the plaintiffs, asking for the city to come up with a day labor center.

Thanks for taking time to read the decision. I have a hunch that 95+% of those on this forum criticizing the decision have never read it!

We're all still waiting for the source of your statistics, that 98% of illegal aliens are Latino and 90% of those Mexican...

The police picked on not only day laborers but Latinos who just happened to be there when the police were there, or driving by. There have been day laborers in the area for over 50 years, but predominately Latino in recent years.

White people engaging in the same activities weren't ticketed or bothered in any way, which the judge felt proved discriminatory treatment. Many contractors were ticketed for traffic offenses, but only while hiring a day laborer. The same offense while not hiring a day laborer didn't receive a ticket.

Selective enforcement of neutral laws against a particular ethnic or racial group is considered discrimination. Some of the comments, like comparisons to "locusts" likely clenched the case for discrimination.

The lack of relevance of their immigration status may in part have come down to what the police and town KNEW and didn't know. The town admitted NOT KNOWing the immigration status of the day workers or other Latinos they picked on, so it would be rather difficult for them to argue they were only picking on illegal immigrants and leaving legal immigrants and citizens alone. The only common thread was appearing to be Latino.

They harassed not only day laborers but other Latinos who just were using the park or driving by. Like one Latino sitting on a park bench before reporting to work. He wasn't a day laborer or breaking any law, unless one subscribes to the 'collective guilt' theory that all Latinos are responsible for the unlawful actions of some. Perhaps eating breakfast on a park bench might be illegal after all...

You persist with the red herring of immigration status. The question is whether a city has the authority to enforce zoning and commerce. Race is simply the bludgeon that apologists for minorities and lawbreakers are able to use when they don't like a law. As I said previously, that's a remedy that white folks don't have, so it is the definition of injustice in that it is available only to those of certain "protected" races.

I note that you continue to avoid directly responding to my challenges. My guess is that this bquasius is just a new username for an old troll who knows from previous cases of my undermining his pretzel logic that his best course is to steer clear of honest debate in order to continue to attempt to propagandize. Isn't that about right?