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

My fault - for some reason the link didn't paste. Here you go:

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/stat ... E_2005.pdf

Per the DHS study, as of January 2005 there are 7.6 million illegal aliens from North America (Mexico, Canada, Central America) and 0.8 million from South America. Per census bureau projections for July 2006 there are 42,687,224 Hispanics in the U.S., so 19.7% of Hispanics in the U.S. are illegal aliens, assuming all illegal aliens from North America are Mexican or Central American.

Census projections:
http://www.census.gov/popest/national/a ... 005-03.xls

Now, anybody have statistics about the numbers or percentages of Latinos who aid and abet illegal immigration?

Mexico takes credit for 10% of their population (10.5 million) living here. The true figure, given the 25 million that have crossed the borders in the last 6 years, is probably closer to 30 million. Just read about all the abandoned towns in Mexico because ALL their men are here.

You don't really believe the BS numbers you're posting, do you?

Now, anybody have statistics about the numbers or percentages of Latinos who aid and abet illegal immigration?

My guess is somewhere around 50% since 48% of Hispanics voted for the tough propositions in Arizona.....this percentage seems follow other votes in Ca. and Az. Since there's no way to know any actual figure, this would be as good of a guess as any. If you take the total know legals in this country as opposed to the estimated illegals, you will also come up with around 50%.

Originally Posted by bquasius

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.

That argument means nothing. First off, that something has been ongoing for years previously in no way means that it cannot suddenly become a problem. The issue, as addressed in the defense, is that the number of day laborers had exploded from a few to maybe a dozen or so people to many tens. Something that can be easily overlooked when the numbers are small can become a problem when the numbers expode as they have in recent years. THAT was the issue. Whether there were arrests of the laborers has nothing to do with whether they were a nuissance. You argument, which is simply a recounting of their arument, is immaterial because it merely raises speculation and does not in and of itself prove anything. The burden of proof was on the day laborers, not the city. What we have is a situation in which an activist judge interfered with the legitimate regulation of commercial activity SOLELY because of the ethnicity of a majority of those involved. That is WRONG for all of the reasons that I have previously cited, but an alien sympathizer such as yourself will never admit that. I should be more spefic. You don't seem to be as much an illegal alien sympathizer as you are a strident defender of all things Hispanic. One is as bad as the other, because it places race above law. What both you and the judge have done is to shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the defendant solely because the accusation is racism.

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.

Originally Posted by bquasius

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.

How convenient. You summarily dodge every challenge to your bogus recounting of the evidence because of something that another poster said in another thread. What a CHEAP cop-out.

Buddy, you are a fraud and I KNOW that you are a troll here to defend the damned Hispanic illegals under the guise of "reasonable" support of efforts to curb the problem. You have been proven to be a liar (in another thread where you made seelf-contradictory claims about your alleged wife's alleged SSN) and you have insisted on other producing support for their claims while you steadfastly refuse to reciprocate.

I have no use for you, troll.

Originally Posted by CheyenneWoman

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.

The town claimed a dearth of problems stemmed from the day laborers, but then when it came time to show this in court the evidence, such as police logs, arrests, tickets, etc. wasn't there, but some of their derogatory claims about "locusts" were there, along with evidence of uneven treatment, sometimes of Latinos who weren't even day workers.

If the town wants to do their part to control illegal immigration, federal law allows delegation of immigration enforcement to state and local police, provided they receive about eight weeks of specialized training in how to interpret immigration documents, detect counterfeits, etc. Florida has done this for years, and other states and communities are getting o board too.

Rather than use a dragnet that would hurt legal immigrants and citizens too, I'd much rather see police trained in immigration enforcement tackle the issue directly, and it would be legal as well.

Originally Posted by CheyenneWoman

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.

Quite often social justice has happened only following someone challenging the status quo.

Originally Posted by CheyenneWoman

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.

Let's look at the flip side. These day laborers are apparently so poor they live from day to day. They probably couldn't have afforded a lawyer. Government can afford millions. And BTW, my income at the moment is less than poverty level, as I'm unemployed. I can't afford lawyers either.

Originally Posted by CheyenneWoman

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.

Agreed. Injustice does happen, but if we do nothing about it it continues. Continued illegal immigration hurts legal immigrants perhaps more than many other groups, but backlash that is misdirected hurts even more. Imagine following all the rules to immigrate to a new country, and after you arrive you find yourself the subject of resentment for something you had nothing to do with and have no control over? At the same time we make life difficult for illegal aliens, we have to be careful to avoid hurting legal immigrants.

Originally Posted by bquasius

Originally Posted by CheyenneWoman

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.

The town claimed a dearth of problems stemmed from the day laborers, but then when it came time to show this in court the evidence, such as police logs, arrests, tickets, etc. wasn't there, but some of their derogatory claims about "locusts" were there, along with evidence of uneven treatment, sometimes of Latinos who weren't even day workers.

If the town wants to do their part to control illegal immigration, federal law allows delegation of immigration enforcement to state and local police, provided they receive about eight weeks of specialized training in how to interpret immigration documents, detect counterfeits, etc. Florida has done this for years, and other states and communities are getting o board too.

Rather than use a dragnet that would hurt legal immigrants and citizens too, I'd much rather see police trained in immigration enforcement tackle the issue directly, and it would be legal as well.

Originally Posted by CheyenneWoman

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.

Quite often social justice has happened only following someone challenging the status quo.

Originally Posted by CheyenneWoman

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.

Let's look at the flip side. These day laborers are apparently so poor they live from day to day. They probably couldn't have afforded a lawyer. Government can afford millions. And BTW, my income at the moment is less than poverty level, as I'm unemployed. I can't afford lawyers either.

Originally Posted by CheyenneWoman

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.

Agreed. Injustice does happen, but if we do nothing about it it continues. Continued illegal immigration hurts legal immigrants perhaps more than many other groups, but backlash that is misdirected hurts even more. Imagine following all the rules to immigrate to a new country, and after you arrive you find yourself the subject of resentment for something you had nothing to do with and have no control over? At the same time we make life difficult for illegal aliens, we have to be careful to avoid hurting legal immigrants.

Note that bquasius uses the dead giveaway term: social justice. That's a euphimism used specifically and almost UNIQUELY by minority advocate groups. Note that he consistently ascribes to the "poor victim" day laborers, without benefit of ANY FACT WHATSOEVER, whatever attributes best suit defense of these guys and villification of the city.

These are not arguments made by a person who opposes illegal immigration. These are the arguments of the OBL. Who sent you here, fraud?

bquasis:

Rather than use a dragnet that would hurt legal immigrants and citizens too, I'd much rather see police trained in immigration enforcement tackle the issue directly, and it would be legal as well.

Are you a believer in the philosophy of - "better 10 guilty men go free than hang one innocent man?"

Let's look at the flip side. These day laborers are apparently so poor they live from day to day. They probably couldn't have afforded a lawyer. Government can afford millions. And BTW, my income at the moment is less than poverty level, as I'm unemployed. I can't afford lawyers either.

Let's look back at the original flip side -

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.

From what I can see, in many, many cases, illegals get preferential treatment as opposed to American citizens. I cite, for example, the two (IMO wrongly convicted) border patrol agents, and, most recently, the land owner who had his ranch confiscated. Ordinary (below poverty level) American citizens don't have groups like LULAC, and MALDEF, and the ACLU fighting for them. The lousy mother living in the church in Chicago sure had no problem coming up with advocates on her behalf.

I think claiming that these people are too poor to afford a lawyer seems hollow to me.

Please tell me, what group advocates on behalf of indigent American citizens?

Crocket:

This man does not want to get into an argument with an Indian about social justice!!! It's not one he could win!!