Arizona requires you to carry your papers

[StrangeSox]

I find it sickening that he can still file a suit despite being a criminal.

 

Jesus Christ do you not understand how our legal system works and, more importantly, why?

[Jenksismyhero]

Jesus Christ do you not understand how our legal system works and, more importantly, why?

 

Please.

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

People who commit crimes deserve no legal protections, civil or criminal?

 

You're really reinforcing and supporting the idea that businesses actively exploit illegal immigrants because they will be less likely to pursue legal recourse.

 

Please, expand on your idea that criminals should not be able to file suit.

Edited May 26, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

How does making it easier for illegal immigrants to work and compete for jobs a GOOD thing, considering we're at 9% unemployment, and we have yet to see any actual, stead net job growth over the last 2-3 years? This thinking is so dumb. We should be working HARDER and making it HARDER for illegals to work here so that the people who are actually citizens or registered guests of this country can work.

 

Because they are taking jobs that regular citizens cant taken. if a business is paying an illegal $2 an hour, they arent going to hire a non-illegal for $8, they just wont hire anyone.

 

If you stop illegals working in the US, all that will happen is you will have less businesses in the US. The labor supply is an international supply, the US cant believe that it can regulate it and hope that businesses will still stay here without giving them sort of economic advantage.

 

For the most part the biggest reason for companies to move to Vietnam etc is the cost of labor is so much cheaper than the US, that they can make it in Vietnam, ship it to the US, for less than making it in the US.

 

Furthermore, there is no evidence that immigration (legal or illegal) results in the loss of jobs for those in the US. In fact the statics show (as ive provided in other threads) that the US economy has increased the most rapid when there is the highest rate of immigration. Which makes sense because immigrants are not only labor, but they are also consumers. So by having more immigrants you have more consumers, which means more business, which means more jobs.

 

Im not sure which economist it was, but there is a theory that everything adds to the economic pie, so basically more immigrants add to the economy, not take away.

[StrangeSox]

Because they are taking jobs that regular citizens cant taken. if a business is paying an illegal $2 an hour, they arent going to hire a non-illegal for $8, they just wont hire anyone.

 

Good. We shouldn't reward businesses who are profiting by exploiting poor immigrants.

 

If their business model relies on enriching themselves by paying employees sub-standard wages and relying on their fear of being deported, they should go out of business. And maybe be hanged.

Edited May 26, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

People who commit crimes deserve no legal protections, civil or criminal?

 

There's a difference between protections and proactively using the courts for their own benefit. This is akin to a burglar filing a civil suit against the person he stole from from because during the robbery he slipped and fell on the floor and broke a leg. It's idiotic.

 

[StrangeSox]

There's a difference between protections and proactively using the courts for their own benefit. This is akin to a burglar filing a civil suit against the person he stole from from because during the robbery he slipped and fell on the floor and broke a leg. It's idiotic.

 

Complaints about frivolous lawsuits are quite a bit different from your broad statement that you feel physically ill that criminals can file suit.

 

edit: to be fair, you didn't say what that suit was over, and I may be over-reacting to a statement that seems horrific on its face but isn't what you intended.

Edited May 26, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Because they are taking jobs that regular citizens cant taken. if a business is paying an illegal $2 an hour, they arent going to hire a non-illegal for $8, they just wont hire anyone.

 

If you stop illegals working in the US, all that will happen is you will have less businesses in the US. The labor supply is an international supply, the US cant believe that it can regulate it and hope that businesses will still stay here without giving them sort of economic advantage.

 

For the most part the biggest reason for companies to move to Vietnam etc is the cost of labor is so much cheaper than the US, that they can make it in Vietnam, ship it to the US, for less than making it in the US.

 

Furthermore, there is no evidence that immigration (legal or illegal) results in the loss of jobs for those in the US. In fact the statics show (as ive provided in other threads) that the US economy has increased the most rapid when there is the highest rate of immigration. Which makes sense because immigrants are not only labor, but they are also consumers. So by having more immigrants you have more consumers, which means more business, which means more jobs.

 

Im not sure which economist it was, but there is a theory that everything adds to the economic pie, so basically more immigrants add to the economy, not take away.

 

The first bolded is crap. Not every illegal alien is some poor mexican making 5 bucks a day. They're everyday people you see on the streets, working blue and white collar jobs.

 

The second bolded I don't think makes any sense or is based on faulty statistics. How do we ever know for sure how many illegals come into the country? Isn't that the whole point? That we don't know how many there really are?

 

And more immigrants = more people to pay for. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see how their "increase" to the economy is a net positive all things considered.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Complaints about frivolous lawsuits are quite a bit different from your broad statement that you feel physically ill that criminals can file suit.

 

Well, I did make that statement together with my story so....

 

 

[StrangeSox]

The first bolded is crap. Not every illegal alien is some poor mexican making 5 bucks a day. They're everyday people you see on the streets, working blue and white collar jobs.

 

Often for sub-standard wages compared to legal workers.

 

The second bolded I don't think makes any sense or is based on faulty statistics. How do we ever know for sure how many illegals come into the country? Isn't that the whole point? That we don't know how many there really are?

 

You can do population statistics without needing to know every single person and come up with a reasonable approximation.

 

And more immigrants = more people to pay for. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see how their "increase" to the economy is a net positive all things considered.

 

Only if you buy into the "immigrants are leeches on society who come here to get welfare" crap.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Good. We shouldn't reward businesses who are profiting by exploiting poor immigrants.

 

If their business model relies on enriching themselves by paying employees sub-standard wages and relying on their fear of being deported, they should go out of business. And maybe be hanged.

 

I agree with this, and that's why I support a lot of what Arizona is doing. Punish the hell out of businesses that do it and the problem corrects itself pretty quickly.

[StrangeSox]

Well, I did make that statement together with my story so....

 

Your statement was broad and general, applying to all 'criminals' and all 'suits', not whatever this particular guy was suing over. What was his suit that you don't think he should be able to bring since he's a criminal?

[StrangeSox]

I agree with this, and that's why I support a lot of what Arizona is doing. Punish the hell out of businesses that do it and the problem corrects itself pretty quickly.

 

But that brings up its own problems that I've pointed out where immigrants end up being discriminated against, intentionally or not, because it's more risky to hire them.

[Jenksismyhero]

Only if you buy into the "immigrants are leeches on society who come here to get welfare" crap.

 

Nope, just being realistic. Immigrants normally have a lot of children without the means to pay for all of them. Doesn't matter what their intent is, it's that they're here, they have multiple children, and they need public assistance to support their families.

[StrangeSox]

Nope, just being realistic. Immigrants normally have a lot of children without the means to pay for all of them. Doesn't matter what their intent is, it's that they're here, they have multiple children, and they need public assistance to support their families.

 

Well just about every economic study I've seen shows a net positive so I dunno what you're basing that on.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impa...s_against_Costs

[Jenksismyhero]

Your statement was broad and general, applying to all 'criminals' and all 'suits', not whatever this particular guy was suing over. What was his suit that you don't think he should be able to bring since he's a criminal?

 

Title VII stuff. And we know he's lying. So despite the fact that he's not here legally, he doesn't report the majority of his income, he has 5 children (while reporting less than 20k in income....so no federal income taxes and I doubt much state, if any), quite confident his "wife" and kids receive a ton of state aid (never married, but again falsified his tax documents, among others), etc etc., he still gets to waste my clients' money defending this case, and your money using the court system.

[StrangeSox]

Then he should be able to get it tossed on those grounds or the fact that its BS. Discrimination shouldn't be excused because the guy did other bad things, that's irrelevant.

[Jenksismyhero]

Then he should be able to get it tossed on those grounds or the fact that its BS. Discrimination shouldn't be excused because the guy did other bad things, that's irrelevant.

 

So why is the robber scenario frivolous? Because that's the same thing. "Just because he did something illegal doesn't mean negligence should be excused."

Edited May 27, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

So why is the robber scenario frivolous? Because that's the same thing. "Just because he did something illegal doesn't mean negligence should be excused."

 

I don't know the details of either case, but I feel confident in saying that employers shouldn't have carte blanche to treat illegals like s*** because "hey, they're already criminals!"

 

FYI, criminals have rights too! It's true!

 

edit: I also have a feeling most of those "Criminals sue would-be victims!" cases are like the "ZOMG McDonalds sued because dumb customer burned themselves!" in that the facts in the little snippets are heavily distorted and mask the actual merit of the case. Also, can we find any verifiable stories of the situation you described happening? I can't.

Edited May 27, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Also not sure how comparable a burgurlar hurting themselves in the commission of a crime is to an illegal alien having their rights violated.

 

edit: Don't get me wrong, given your description of the case, I understand your annoyance.

 

edit 2: Califorinia seems to have a common-sense solution: can't sue for damages incurred during the commission of a felony.

 

AB 200 was passed in 1985 and is still part of the California Civil Code. 847 reads:

 

“847. (a) An owner, including, but not limited to, a public entity,

as defined in Section 811.2 of the Government Code, of any estate or

any other interest in real property, whether possessory or

nonpossessory, shall not be liable to any person for any injury or

death that occurs upon that property during the course of or after

the commission of any of the felonies set forth in subdivision (b) by

the injured or deceased person.

(b) The felonies to which the provisions of this section apply are

the following: (1) Murder or voluntary manslaughter; (2) mayhem;

(3) rape; (4) sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, or threat of

great bodily harm; (5) oral copulation by force, violence, duress,

menace, or threat of great bodily harm; (6) lewd acts on a child

under the age of 14 years; (7) any felony punishable by death or

imprisonment in the state prison for life; (8) any other felony in

which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury on any person, other

than an accomplice, or any felony in which the defendant uses a

firearm; (9) attempted murder; (10) assault with intent to commit

rape or robbery; (11) assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a

peace officer; (12) assault by a life prisoner on a noninmate; (13)

assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate; (14) arson; (15) exploding

a destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure; (16)

exploding a destructive device or any explosive causing great bodily

injury; (17) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with

intent to murder; (18) burglary; (19) robbery; (20) kidnapping; (21)

taking of a hostage by an inmate of a state prison; (22) any felony

in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon;

(23) selling, furnishing, administering, or providing heroin,

cocaine, or phencyclidine (PCP) to a minor; (24) grand theft as

defined in Sections 487 and 487a of the Penal Code; and (25) any

attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision other than an

assault…”

Edited May 27, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Ongoing case related to illegal immigration and our side-track:

 

Workers who were fired for being illegal immigrants sue Chipotle

 

Workers claim that Chipotle violated labor laws by not paying back-pay quickly enough. I don't see why they shouldn't be afforded the same protections just because they were illegal immigrants (don't know if their case has any merit but that's not relevant).

[Jenksismyhero]

Ongoing case related to illegal immigration and our side-track:

 

Workers who were fired for being illegal immigrants sue Chipotle

 

Workers claim that Chipotle violated labor laws by not paying back-pay quickly enough. I don't see why they shouldn't be afforded the same protections just because they were illegal immigrants (don't know if their case has any merit but that's not relevant).

 

I just don't see why. Again, it's like a gang member suing the gang leader after he got shot during a bust. You're here illegally, working illegally, and the employer hired you illegally. I have absolutely no beef with enacting harsher penalties on employers for hiring illegals, and even more penalties if they systematically take advantage of illegals. But I don't see how or why illegals should be able to use our system to recover from their illegal acts, regardless of their own illegal mistreatment.

 

Edit: And to me the case of something like criminal mistreatment is entirely different because society has accepted the responsibility of treating you fairly in prison. And criminals in prison DO lose a lot of rights precisely because they are criminals. It's not as if taking away basic access to the courts is an absolute right.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[Texsox]

From purely an economic standpoint, what is the difference between legal and illegal immigration?

[StrangeSox]

I just don't see why. Again, it's like a gang member suing the gang leader after he got shot during a bust. You're here illegally, working illegally, and the employer hired you illegally. I have absolutely no beef with enacting harsher penalties on employers for hiring illegals, and even more penalties if they systematically take advantage of illegals. But I don't see how or why illegals should be able to use our system to recover from their illegal acts, regardless of their own illegal mistreatment.

 

Edit: And to me the case of something like criminal mistreatment is entirely different because society has accepted the responsibility of treating you fairly in prison. And criminals in prison DO lose a lot of rights precisely because they are criminals. It's not as if taking away basic access to the courts is an absolute right.

 

You're glossing over the fact that someone else is also breaking the law in these cases. If we assume your client really is in violation of Title VII, why should he get away with illegal activity just because his target was here illegally?

 

Should gang members be immune from prosecution for killing other gang members?

[Jenksismyhero]

You're glossing over the fact that someone else is also breaking the law in these cases. If we assume your client really is in violation of Title VII, why should he get away with illegal activity just because his target was here illegally?

 

Should gang members be immune from prosecution for killing other gang members?

 

I agree, but the penalty should be not hiring them in the first place. And laws like the one in AZ actually provide employers with more protection against harsher hiring laws because they're forced to take certain steps to make sure they're hiring someone who is legal (or as sure as they can be instead of just taking their word for it).