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

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

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.

Yes, the city does have the authority to enforce zoning and commerce, but cannot do so in a manner that targets certain groups or even an individual while ignoring others, and there was ample evidence they targeted Latinos, and not necessarily day workers.

If they ticket a contractors truck for pulling up to the curb for a few seconds, then they also have to ticket the person that drops off someone at the curb at the same location and duration with same rules in effect. They went so far as to ticket Latino drivers without seat belts while not ticketing white drivers. Equal protection = equal treatment of all.

There are cases where advocacy groups use race to achieve their other agendas, but as I read the evidence and judge's decision, it is apparent to me that this case does not fit that mold. The Village of Mamaroneck did truely engage in a campaign that treated one group different than another, and that's a violation of their constitutional rights. The day laborers want the town off their back so they can earn a living, and nothing more. It's not illegal for them to hire themselves out, only illegal under federal law if they're illegal immigrants or they don't pay taxes, etc.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

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?

I have never been on this forum with another name. I sometimes have read posts on ALIPAC that are personal attacks and did not dignify with a public response (one was clearly libelous), and violated the rules. I was busy yesterday, but will go back and review for unanswered posts. If you posted a challenge that was worthy of a public response and I didn't respond, you shall have a response.

bquasius,

I'm sorry I took a day off from the boards and wasn't able to respond to you yesterday.

You asked for figures, here they are.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, "57% of ALL Hispanics in America are foreign-born, and over half of those are here illegally." If you put pencil to paper, .57X.51=.2907 .57X.55=.3135

Suffice it to say that 3 of EVERY 10 Hispanics in America are here illegally.

Going further, 2004 USBP data show just over 1 million arrests at our borders. Of that, 44,000 were OTM's, leaving 956,000+ Mexicans.

Of the OTM's, 33,000 came from Central and South America, i.e. Hispanic.

That leaves 11,000 non-Hispanic arrestees, or 1.1% of the total.

Hispanic illegal immigration constitutes 98.9% of the problem.

It's not racist to acknowledge the obvious.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

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.

Yes, the town can regulate commerce through ordinances, but not in a selective way. In this case, there's no law prohibiting offering oneself for day laborer, so they were aggressively ticketing contractors, while ignoring other drivers that violated the same exact laws. They also enforced other laws that had no remote connection to day laborers in a selective way.

I am 100% opposed to any form of amnesty or open borders, always have been, and the only immigration advocacy group I am affiliated with is this group. It's a shame there are some on this forum that think either you agree 100% with their views or 'you're one of those open border aztlan advocates.'

Where I draw the line are actions that lump legal or illegal immigrants together in any form of "collective guilt." The large majority of legal immigrants in this country don't support illegal immigration and don't deserve bad treatment merely because they may share a common ethnic background with illegal immigrants.

I also don't think much of measures designed to control illegal immigration if aren't very practical or effective and end up making life even more difficult for legal immigrants.

The previous analysis was flawed. First, 40-50% of all illegal immigrants enter the U.S. with a nonimmigrant visa, and then never leave. I don't think Mexicans receive 98% of the nonimmigrant visas. I doubt the percentages of Mexicans holds for illegal entry arrests at the border with Canada or by ship. I was thinking more alone the lines of 50%. According to PEW, I'm not off by much.

Here's a better estimate from the PEW Hispanic Center:
Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population
by Jeffrey S. Passel, Senior Research Associate, Pew Hispanic Center

Report Materials
Complete Report
The Pew Hispanic Center has developed new estimates for the size and key characteristics of the population of foreign-born persons living in the United States without proper authorization using data from the March 2004 Current Population Survey which is conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Labor.

Major findings include:


Following several years of steady growth, the number of undocumented residents reached an estimated 10.3 million in March 2004 with undocumented Mexicans numbering 5.9 million or 57 percent of the total.

As of March 2005, the undocumented population has reached nearly 11 million including more than 6 million Mexicans, assuming the same rate of growth as in recent years.

About 80 to 85 percent of the migration from Mexico in recent years has been undocumented.

Since the mid-1990s, the most rapid growth in the number of undocumented migrants has been in states that previously had relatively small foreign-born populations. As a result, Arizona and North Carolina are now among the states with the largest numbers of undocumented migrants.

Although most undocumented migrants are young adults, there is also a sizeable childhood population. About one-sixth of the population--some 1.7 million people-- is under 18 years of the age.

Originally Posted by bquasius

The previous analysis was flawed. First, 40-50% of all illegal immigrants enter the U.S. with a nonimmigrant visa, and then never leave. I don't think Mexicans receive 98% of the nonimmigrant visas. I doubt the percentages of Mexicans holds for illegal entry arrests at the border with Canada or by ship. I was thinking more alone the lines of 50%. According to PEW, I'm not off by much.

The figures I cited represent ALL arrests at ALL borders and ports. Since the USBP estimates 4+ million a year getting across the borders, (98.9% Hispanic) DHS estimated overstays to be one-third of the total illegal immigrants, not including overstays from Mexico and Canada, nor short-term overstays who have not yet established residence. Also, Mexico accounts for 17% of visas, with the rest of Central and South America accounting for another 10%

I guess what I'm trying to say is I doubt the accuracy of 50% as much as you doubt the accuracy of 98%. I'm willing to lower my figure, based on what I've learned about visa overstays, maybe 10%. It's hard to be accurate when the government won't keep the figures.

Following several years of steady growth, the number of undocumented residents reached an estimated 10.3 million in March 2004 with undocumented Mexicans numbering 5.9 million or 57 percent of the total.

As of March 2005, the undocumented population has reached nearly 11 million including more than 6 million Mexicans, assuming the same rate of growth as in recent years.

About 80 to 85 percent of the migration from Mexico in recent years has been undocumented.

It's hard to go along with these figures when they're disputed by the US Census. According to the 2000 Census, there were approximately 9+ million illegal aliens in the country, they really couldn't be sure, but they assumed a 10% undercount. Let's just call it 10 million for the sake of round numbers.
The U.S. Census 2000 estimated 10 million


U.S. Border Patrol fiscal 2005 apprehended 1.2 million, U.S.B.P. 'catch rate' is estimated to be 20%, meaning 4.8 million last year.

Assuming these 2 years to be 'average', 4+million times 6 years since Census equals 24 to 25 million, added to the pre-existing 10 million equals 35 million here now.

It is interesting to note that in 1986, it was estimated that 1.2 million illegal aliens would qualify for THAT amnesty. The actual total was well over 3 million. Assuming a comparable miscalculation today, 35 million is a much more realistic number.

Let's cut to the chase here:

The judge had to rule on the LAW. Plain and simple. I don't like it, but there it is. The town did not apply the law evenhandedly. "Stuff" happens.

I believe that the town was trying to reduce illegals and simply went about it in a way that got them into trouble. I think their frustration with illegals drove them to do things that could have been handled differently. How. . . by passing a law against day labor sites!!!! But then again, that probably would have been challenged by the ACLU. It would have made sense to me that the day laborers in questions should have produced the proper documents to ensure they were legal. But, then again, I'm sure that would have been challenged somewhere.

Latinos were targeted - okay - so what? I contend that this is a simple outgrowth of the frustration against illegals because our government WON'T DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM. Right now, emotions are raw and frustrations run high because no decisive action is being taken.

YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE HOW PEOPLE FEEL. Different ethnic groups have been targeted (mine included) throughout the history of the world. White people are now becoming discriminated against by many ethnic groups, simply because they're white. Do you really think there won't be a backlash when our court systems appear to be bending over backwards to satisy someone's "emotional distress"?

If bquasis wants total conformity under the laws, then I would like to suggest he's living in the wrong country. The laws of this country have rarely been applied evenly to all citizens, regardless of color.

Bquasis, please tell me that you would get the same treatment under the law if you were a lower middle class citizen, than those who can afford "Dream Team" lawyers. I know for a fact that Indians don't.

I'm old enough to see our laws swing from highly abusive to so blinkin' liberal that murderers, rapists and the like get less jail time than two decorated patrol agents trying to do their jobs.

Every human being ( I believe) carries some form of divisive tendencies - for example, non-smokers against smokers, one religious group against another religious group, one political party against another political party, etc. I'm as guilty as any other human being of, occasionally, pre-judging people, or lumping them into a group.

I'm not saying this is right - I'm simply saying that it happens, and we have to work against it. The town should have taken a different approach, which, more than likely, would still have gotten them into trouble.

Originally Posted by bquasius

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

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.

Yes, the city does have the authority to enforce zoning and commerce, but cannot do so in a manner that targets certain groups or even an individual while ignoring others, and there was ample evidence they targeted Latinos, and not necessarily day workers.

But that's not what happened. They didn't leave a day labor site for one group operating while shutting down another. You (and the judge) are misapplying the term "racism." Just because a given law disproportionally affects one of another group does not make it racist, any more than pointing out that one or another group is statistically more likely to commit a given crime is racist. When it happens that a given group is making nuissance of itself, it is not a legitimate defense of that nuissance that those committing it are disproportionally of one or another race, nor is it fair to claim that serving the needs of the greater community by shutting down the undesirable activity is racist.

Again, had this been a day labor site peopled by poor white folks, its being shut down would have passed without incident and the laborers would have had no recourse. Quite contrary to the claim that Hispanics' rights are being violated, I suggest that they and other minorities now have special rights and recourse that most of us do not have.

Originally Posted by bquasius

If they ticket a contractors truck for pulling up to the curb for a few seconds, then they also have to ticket the person that drops off someone at the curb at the same location and duration with same rules in effect. They went so far as to ticket Latino drivers without seat belts while not ticketing white drivers. Equal protection = equal treatment of all.

I saw that alleged. Since you proudly claim to have read the entire seventy pages of the decision, perhaps you can show us where that allegation was proven. Let's remember that the city was defendant and that allegations against it carry with them the burden of proof on the part of the plaintiff. That the city did not respond positively to a given allegation does not make that allegation a fact. Specifically, what FACT presented by the plaintiffs proved that the police did not ticket anyone but Hispanics for stopping at that curb?

Originally Posted by bquasius

There are cases where advocacy groups use race to achieve their other agendas, but as I read the evidence and judge's decision, it is apparent to me that this case does not fit that mold. The Village of Mamaroneck did truely engage in a campaign that treated one group different than another, and that's a violation of their constitutional rights. The day laborers want the town off their back so they can earn a living, and nothing more. It's not illegal for them to hire themselves out, only illegal under federal law if they're illegal immigrants or they don't pay taxes, etc.

Do you even know what constitutional rights are? Commerce within city limits is not a right, nor is gathering in any specific place to engage in commercial activity. That is a well-settled matter of law. You need to stop pretending to understand law when it is so patently obvious that you do not.

Originally Posted by bquasius

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

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?

I have never been on this forum with another name. I sometimes have read posts on ALIPAC that are personal attacks and did not dignify with a public response (one was clearly libelous), and violated the rules. I was busy yesterday, but will go back and review for unanswered posts. If you posted a challenge that was worthy of a public response and I didn't respond, you shall have a response.

I see that you persist with the false claim of libel. I saw that post, and the comment was CLEARLY stated as an opinion. Libel exists only where a defamatory FACT is alleged. Again, don't pretend to understand law if you do not. It is clear that you claim to understand a good many things that you clearly do not. Furthermore, your pro-immigrant bias is as obvious as your lack of legal comprehension.

DHS published a comprehensive study of illegal immigration. Their number for the percentage of illegal aliens from Mexico is 57%, identical to the Pew Hispanic study.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by bquasius

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

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.

Yes, the city does have the authority to enforce zoning and commerce, but cannot do so in a manner that targets certain groups or even an individual while ignoring others, and there was ample evidence they targeted Latinos, and not necessarily day workers.

But that's not what happened. They didn't leave a day labor site for one group operating while shutting down another. You (and the judge) are misapplying the term "racism." Just because a given law disproportionally affects one of another group does not make it racist, any more than pointing out that one or another group is statistically more likely to commit a given crime is racist. When it happens that a given group is making nuissance of itself, it is not a legitimate defense of that nuissance that those committing it are disproportionally of one or another race, nor is it fair to claim that serving the needs of the greater community by shutting down the undesirable activity is racist.

Again, had this been a day labor site peopled by poor white folks, its being shut down would have passed without incident and the laborers would have had no recourse. Quite contrary to the claim that Hispanics' rights are being violated, I suggest that they and other minorities now have special rights and recourse that most of us do not have.

.

There has been a day laborer site in that town for more than 50 years, in the past presumably peopled by poor white folks, but in recent years more predominately Hispanic. The police log for the area is almost void of any arrests for suspects with Hispanic surnames at the site (that's in the decision too). Moreover, there's no record of arrests or tickets for the day laborers, or complaints noted in the police log. How could they be such a rotten bunch and yet there's almost no record of it, including before the aggressive police campaign? The judge smelled something wrong with the town's argument, and I see it too.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by bquasius

If they ticket a contractors truck for pulling up to the curb for a few seconds, then they also have to ticket the person that drops off someone at the curb at the same location and duration with same rules in effect. They went so far as to ticket Latino drivers without seat belts while not ticketing white drivers. Equal protection = equal treatment of all.

I saw that alleged. Since you proudly claim to have read the entire seventy pages of the decision, perhaps you can show us where that allegation was proven. Let's remember that the city was defendant and that allegations against it carry with them the burden of proof on the part of the plaintiff. That the city did not respond positively to a given allegation does not make that allegation a fact. Specifically, what FACT presented by the plaintiffs proved that the police did not ticket anyone but Hispanics for stopping at that curb?

Originally Posted by bquasius

There are cases where advocacy groups use race to achieve their other agendas, but as I read the evidence and judge's decision, it is apparent to me that this case does not fit that mold. The Village of Mamaroneck did truely engage in a campaign that treated one group different than another, and that's a violation of their constitutional rights. The day laborers want the town off their back so they can earn a living, and nothing more. It's not illegal for them to hire themselves out, only illegal under federal law if they're illegal immigrants or they don't pay taxes, etc.

Do you even know what constitutional rights are? Commerce within city limits is not a right, nor is gathering in any specific place to engage in commercial activity. That is a well-settled matter of law. You need to stop pretending to understand law when it is so patently obvious that you do not.

Originally Posted by bquasius

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

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?

I have never been on this forum with another name. I sometimes have read posts on ALIPAC that are personal attacks and did not dignify with a public response (one was clearly libelous), and violated the rules. I was busy yesterday, but will go back and review for unanswered posts. If you posted a challenge that was worthy of a public response and I didn't respond, you shall have a response.

I see that you persist with the false claim of libel. I saw that post, and the comment was CLEARLY stated as an opinion. Libel exists only where a defamatory FACT is alleged. Again, don't pretend to understand law if you do not. It is clear that you claim to understand a good many things that you clearly do not. Furthermore, your pro-immigrant bias is as obvious as your lack of legal comprehension.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not going to discuss the blatantly false and extremely offensive allegation in this or any other forum. The best analogy is that when one wrestles with a pig, the person gets muddy but the pig has lots of fun. I'm not going there.

Originally Posted by bquasius

DHS published a comprehensive study of illegal immigration. Their number for the percentage of illegal aliens from Mexico is 57%, identical to the Pew Hispanic study.

No links = no credibility

And using that 57% figure I've demonstrated that 30% of the Hispanic population in America is ILLEGAL! Should that figure be LOW, and I believe that it is, the percentage of illegal Hispanics only goes up. Some believe that the percentage of Hispanics in America that are illegal is as high as 50%.

In many areas across the country, it is.