• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Republicans want to make it harder to vote and easier for them to cheat.

Someone should tell Republicans that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, or possibly the first.

If a good thing happens for a bad reason, it’s still a good thing.

The arc of history bends toward the same old fuckery.

Their freedom requires your slavery.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. keep building.

Oh FFS you might as well trust a 6-year-old with a flamethrower.

Bark louder, little dog.

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Beware of advice from anyone for whom Democrats are “they” and not “we.”

President Musk and Trump are both poorly raised, coddled 8 year old boys.

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

Petty moves from a petty man.

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

“Until such time as the world ends, we will act as though it intends to spin on.”

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

The lights are all blinking red.

Museums are not America’s attic for its racist shit.

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Media / Why Lou Dobbs Makes Me Want To Poke Myself In The Eye With A Fork

Why Lou Dobbs Makes Me Want To Poke Myself In The Eye With A Fork

by Tim F|  December 26, 20066:38 pm| 379 Comments

This post is in: Media, General Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

OK, the city of Hazelton, PA wants to “crack down” on illegal immigrants and the ACLU has objected. I get that. So what is it that Hazelton has done? Why does the ACLU object? That might help viewers decide whether, you know, the ACLU is really an unstoppable army of evil Nazis as Dobbs’s staff so bluntly implies.

Meanwhile Pat Robertson and Rick Scarborough (I think) are obsessing on MSNBC about a horserace poll between four Democratic presidential candidates who haven’t even announced yet and Headline News is its usual useless, which forces me to go to FOX News for information. Which by comparison doesn’t seem half bad. Which makes me want to jab myself in the eye with a fork.

Discuss.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « The ISG’s Rhetorical Impact Begins To Sink In
Next Post: South Padre Is Next »

Reader Interactions

379Comments

  1. 1.

    TenguPhule

    December 26, 2006 at 6:43 pm

    which forces me to go to FOX News for information.

    Something has gone horribly wrong.

  2. 2.

    Dulcie

    December 26, 2006 at 6:45 pm

    You should want to poke Lou Dobbs in the eye with a fork ;-)

  3. 3.

    ThymeZone

    December 26, 2006 at 6:55 pm

    I recommend a couple of drinks and a good dinner out.

    Turn off the tv and turn on some Corrine Bailey Rae.

  4. 4.

    Darrell

    December 26, 2006 at 7:41 pm

    OK, the city of Hazelton, PA wants to “crack down” on illegal immigrants and the ACLU has objected. I get that. So what is it that Hazelton has done? Why does the ACLU object? That might help viewers decide whether, you know, the ACLU is really an unstoppable army of evil Nazis as Dobbs’s staff so bluntly implies

    Well then Tim, why not inform us? What did Hazelton do which was so horrible? On the surface, it looks pretty cut and dried – Hazelton wants to punish businesses which hire illegal aliens and the ACLU wants to stop them from this. If that’s true, the ACLU is taking a very extremist position, and Dobbs would be justified in pointing this out.

    Is there more to the story than that? Why would Dobbs’ calling out the ACLU on their position cause you such frustration?

  5. 5.

    dreggas

    December 26, 2006 at 7:41 pm

    here’s a bit on the Hazleton case Here

    The judge blocked enforcement because only the federal government can regulate immigration, and since the ACLU was on board against the ordinances they are the devil.

    The amusing nugget is the fines imposed on business’ for hiring illegals. The amusing part being that the feds are supposed to be doing just that but the reality is they are doing a piss poor job.

  6. 6.

    ThymeZone

    December 26, 2006 at 7:47 pm

    If that’s true, the ACLU is taking a very extremist position

    Have you seen either the action, or the response?

    Every “crackdown” move I’ve seen so far involves government putting the burden of ascertaining proof of citizenship, status and identity on employers. That’s exactly why there’s no teeth in existing laws all these years. It’s a model that won’t work, as I have told you before, and as you have ignored before.

    You and the dittohead Dobbs types want easy answers to tough problems. Unfortunately, they don’t exist. If they did this problem would have been addressed 60 years ago.

    Fortunately we have ACLU to stand between opportunistic and stupid government trampling on liberties, and the rest of us. That’s why I give money to ACLU and carry an ACLU card in my wallet. To protect from assholes like you who never met a government theft of freedom you didn’t like, as long as it fit your political predispositions.

  7. 7.

    Darrell

    December 26, 2006 at 7:51 pm

    That’s why I give money to ACLU and carry an ACLU card in my wallet. To protect from assholes like you who never met a government theft of freedom

    What part of “illegal” alien do you not understand?

  8. 8.

    ThymeZone

    December 26, 2006 at 8:01 pm

    What part of “illegal” alien do you not understand?

    I’m quite happy to let others here decide which of us has the better understanding of this issue.

  9. 9.

    Zifnab

    December 26, 2006 at 8:15 pm

    Is there more to the story than that? Why would Dobbs’ calling out the ACLU on their position cause you such frustration?

    That’s an excellent question, Darrell. Perhaps Lou Dobbs could enlighten us by actually reporting the news rather than just blowing hot air like some holier-than-thou blimp.

    You see, Darrell, the alleged purpose of the news media is to collect information from sources and present it in a format that is more easily digustable by the viewer. When you have a man who fails to collect more information than I could garner from Goggle in about 2.6 seconds, and you give him a nationally distributed television position, you have a man who’s not doing his job. It would be like if I were to show up at my office and tell my boss exactly why I think Perl is vastly inferior to PHP, yet do no actual programming in either language. If my boss then handed me a six figure salary, you’d call my boss an idiot.

    So, I think what I’m really saying is that whoever runs CNN is an idiot (alternately, a collection of idiots who fall to harnass any form of positive synergy).

  10. 10.

    TenguPhule

    December 26, 2006 at 8:39 pm

    Shorter Darrell: Honesty is overrated. So is freedom.

  11. 11.

    s

    December 26, 2006 at 9:01 pm

    The nation cut loose from its moorings about 1980 – when the right got in bed with the man who spent billions in overseas swindled bucks to screw us by bringing Newt, Delay and a Bush type to power. He’s now doing the same screwing to the rest of the world and the “media” – particularly in DC – will not report it because he owns most of the production facilities they use.

    He said 25 years ago he wanted a media loyal to him and today, by being silent, they ARE!!

    Find the fucking time to watch this. All of it.

  12. 12.

    ThymeZone

    December 26, 2006 at 9:24 pm

    Why Lou Dobbs Makes Me Want To Poke Myself Darrell In The Eye With A Fork

    Suggested improvement.

  13. 13.

    Zifnab

    December 26, 2006 at 9:40 pm

    The measures, approved by City Council last month, would have imposed fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and denied business permits to companies that give them jobs. They also would have required tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.

    U.S. District Judge James Munley ruled that landlords, tenants and businesses that cater to Hispanics faced “irreparable harm” from the laws and issued a temporary restraining order blocking their enforcement.

    “We find it in the public interest to protect residents’ access to homes, education, jobs and businesses,” he wrote in a 13-page opinion.

    Why is this a bad way to enforce immigration?

    For starters, it instantly makes the 13 million resident aliens living in the United States homeless. Yes, yes. I know. They’re illegal. Why should we care if 13 million people are tossed out on the street if, in fact, they are nothing more than hardened criminals living off their ill-gotten lawn care and housecleaning windfalls? However, some would question the wisdom and ethics of effectively deputizing every US landlord. There is also the question of where alleged illegal residents of Allentown, Pa are supposed to vacate to while having their residency verified. Can we fit them all in jail? What about parents with children born in the States? Do we orphan the kids? Maybe make them the rents in their parents’ stead? What do you do with the now epic influx of street-people and unemployeed non-citizenry? There are several thousand miles and not a few states between Allentown, PA and the Mexican boarder. Do the illegal aliens just get kicked across the county line where the local jurisdiction ends? Maybe let Philidephia or Harrisburg handle it from there? How many times can a town pass the buck, kicking an immigrant down the curb through municipal jail after municipal jail, before they crap him out onto his native soil?

    Reasons, good reasons, exist for why we don’t let Barney Fife play INS agent every time he picks up a day laborer from Pottstown on the wrong side of the tracks. And if the INS can’t or won’t act, these reasons still exist, hampering a local offical’s ability to do his job even if the local county encourages him. The judge knew the limits of a municipality trying to act like a federal government, which is why he ruled against Allentown. The ACLU knew the potential fallout of trying to run every illegal in the city out of town, which is why they followed suit. Lou Dobbs doesn’t know dick about pussy, so he should just stfu if he doesn’t want to do leg work like a real journalist.

  14. 14.

    Fledermaus

    December 26, 2006 at 10:14 pm

    unstoppable army of evil Nazis lawyers

    Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it’s an ethos.

  15. 15.

    ThymeZone

    December 26, 2006 at 10:20 pm

    Excellent article, Zif.

    But what part of illegal alien don’t you understand?

    / Darrell

  16. 16.

    Tim F.

    December 26, 2006 at 10:23 pm

    It’s a bad idea because it turns every employer into an immigration cop, which for most of them simply isn’t practical. The idea amounts to a government plan for restructuring the service, meatpacking and construction industries through aggressive legislation.

    But that isn’t really my point. If I watched Lou Dobbs I wouldn’t know any of that. I would just know that this town wants to do some vague good thing and the anonymously-funded fascists at ACLU want to get in their way with legal intimidation and scare tactics. Which forces me to change the channel in search of actual information. Which sends me, via the horserace circlejerk at MSNBC, to FOX News where actual reporting is going on. Which is where the fork comes in.

  17. 17.

    Darrell

    December 26, 2006 at 11:11 pm

    Tim F. Says:

    It’s a bad idea because it turns every employer into an immigration cop, which for most of them simply isn’t practical

    In case you haven’t switched jobs in the past several years, you are required to provide ID and “proof” of citizenship. Employers already have to check for this. The only difference is that paper social security cards without photo serve as proof, and employers who knowingly hire illegals let it slide with a wink and a nod.

    But make no mistake, employers have to check now.. so this is not such a new ‘burden’ for them, anymore than it’s a burden for sellers of alcohol to make sure that fake ID’s aren’t used for minors to purchase alcohol. Furthermore, this city is enforcing existing federal immigration laws, so I see no reason for such frustration. The ACLU is supporting an extremist position, just as they did when they backed NAMBLA and tried to bar nativity scences. They have taken quite a number of positions which most Americans consider quite extreme. Lou Dobbs called them out on what they’re doing to block what appear to be reasonable measures to enforce illegal immigration. It’s a safe bet that a large majority of Americans agree with Dobbs on this particular issue which you have singled out.

  18. 18.

    ThymeZone

    December 26, 2006 at 11:27 pm

    Employers already have to check for this. The only difference is that paper social security cards without photo serve as proof, and employers who knowingly hire illegals let it slide with a wink and a nod.

    But make no mistake, employers have to check now

    No, you are dead wrong about this, and no matter how often you repeat the lie, you are still wrong.

    Employers are not being asked to “check.” Checking doesn’t prove anything. The Dobbs approach requires that employers be held responsible for the veracity of the documentation. Nobody knows how to do that. That’s why it isn’t done. The raids and the crackdowns are just bullshit, just for show, to fool the rubes like you.

    As I said, if this system worked, the problem would have been solved a long time ago.

    Perhaps the creation of a National ID program is the answer. That’s an idea dear to the hearts of all good conservatives, right Darrell? A Big Brother program. How about implanting chips under the skin? Come on man, think outside the box, get creative.

    You are living proof of the axiom “For every complex problem there exists at least one simple, but wrong, solution.”

    The other big lie you tell all the time is that ACLU takes “extreme” positions. Nothing could be further from the truth, the positions are based on simple interpretation of Constitutional protections. What they often do is apply their defenses to people and groups on the edge of society, where the greatest risk is, and where the threats to liberty are. That means that some of the people and groups there are extremist in one way or another … in other words, despised or unpopular. That is exactly where liberties and freedoms must be defended. If you think you can defend them only when they come for the people you like, or you, then it’s way too late.

    Maybe if you had an 8th grade education, you’d understand these things. I learned them in grade school. What happened to you?

  19. 19.

    Darrell

    December 26, 2006 at 11:31 pm

    The judge knew the limits of a municipality trying to act like a federal government, which is why he ruled against Allentown

    Is this true, or did you pull that out of your ass? State and local govts pass laws all the time which mimic federal laws.. laws against murder and rape for example. To my knowledge, unless the constitution forbids it, state and local govts are able to pass their own laws and enforce them. In this case, enforcement is backed up by both federal and local laws. So explain for us zifnab, the “limits” of a municipality to enforce immigration laws. I’ll await your ‘informed’ reply.

  20. 20.

    Darrell

    December 26, 2006 at 11:34 pm

    Employers are not being asked to “check.”

    The hell they’re not. They have to have photo ID and ‘proof’ of citizenship, even if such proof amounts to a forged SS card. Why do we force sellers of alcohol and employers of adult entertainment to check the authenticity of IDs, but not do the same for other employers? Truth is, the worst violators of immigration law are employers who KNOWINGLY hire illegal aliens.

  21. 21.

    BIRDZILLA

    December 26, 2006 at 11:35 pm

    We all know that the ACLU is one of the most liberal leftists groups around they oppose the death penalty while supporting abortion how much worse can one get then this?

  22. 22.

    Darrell

    December 26, 2006 at 11:38 pm

    The other big lie you tell all the time is that ACLU takes “extreme” positions. Nothing could be further from the truth, the positions are based on simple interpretation of Constitutional protections

    Explain for us then TZ, why the ACLU supports NAMBLA having a website which includes instructions such as “how do seduce boys without getting caught or convicted”?

    The ACLU believes free speech triumphs community safety..that free speech triumphs everything. That is an extreme position by pretty much any standard. It takes an extremist to defend such positions, wouldn’t you agree?

  23. 23.

    ThymeZone

    December 26, 2006 at 11:40 pm

    Why do we force sellers of alcohol and employers of adult entertainment to check the authenticity of IDs

    Are you nuts? Not only are you dead, flat wrong, the thing you are saying is just nuts.

    They aren’t checking the authenticity of the IDs, you idiot. They have no way to do that. I can go two miles from where I sit and buy an Arizona Driver’s License that is absolutely indistinguishable from the real one I already have, and have any date of birth on it that I like. There is no way that a store clerk, or an employer, can know that it’s real or fake. I can drive down to Mexico tomorrow and buy five new identities. It would be next to impossible for anyone out there to know which of my IDs was the real one without extensive investigation.

    What is the matter with you?

  24. 24.

    ThymeZone

    December 26, 2006 at 11:43 pm

    ACLU supports NAMBLA

    You fucking moron. Protecting the rights of the organization has nothing to do with “supporting” them.

    I will defend their rights. I care nothing for their views. Just as I would do for you. I think you stink, but I would defend your legal rights if called upon to do so. I would consider my ACLU dollars well spent even if they were spent on defending the rights of the likes of you. Yes, even that far, Darrell.

    Get it? Protections are for the people you hate, otherwise they aren’t worth anything.

    Not even you can be stupid enough not to understand that.

  25. 25.

    Darrell

    December 26, 2006 at 11:43 pm

    They have no way to do that. I can go two miles from where I sit and buy an Arizona Driver’s License that is absolutely indistinguishable from the real one I already have, and have any date of birth on it that I like. There is no way that a store clerk, or an employer, can know that it’s real or fake

    I don’t know about that. I have a magnetic strip scanner info on my license.. I’ll bet AZ has the same. I think you’re full of shit as always.

    SS cards don’t even require a photo.

  26. 26.

    Darrell

    December 26, 2006 at 11:46 pm

    Get it? Protections are for the people you hate, otherwise they aren’t worth anything

    But the ACLU has made the decision that NANBLA’s freedom of speech to instruct pedophiles on how to molest children trumps community safety. I believe most Americans would agree with me that an absolutist position such as that is extreme as hell.. and reprehensible.

  27. 27.

    ThymeZone

    December 26, 2006 at 11:48 pm

    SS cards don’t even require a photo.

    Correct. That’s why they mean nothing. Are you going to have every employer conduct a background check on every employee? Who’s going to pay for that? Lou Dobbs?

  28. 28.

    Brian

    December 26, 2006 at 11:52 pm

    Dude, you don’t get info from TV news. I hope this isn’t news.

    The tube is a skinner box designed to tickle and irritate nerve endings. There were only four important words in that first paragraph: crack down, immigrants, ACLU. Any rat with the proper conditioning knows how those stimuli are supposed to feel.

    Crack down = good, in the land of the free we welcome any and all cracking down by the government

    immigrants and ACLU = boo!

  29. 29.

    Darrell

    December 26, 2006 at 11:53 pm

    Correct. That’s why they mean nothing. Are you going to have every employer conduct a background check on every employee?

    Most employers do background checks and drug tests already. They have the HR infrastructure in place. Even a small shop has an HR type who can make a call to the SSA to see if a SS # is valid and matches with the photo ID.

    You and Tim pretend this is some huge barrier, which isn’t ‘practical’. I’m calling bullshit..

  30. 30.

    ThymeZone

    December 26, 2006 at 11:53 pm

    But the ACLU has made the decision that NANBLA’s freedom of speech to instruct pedophiles on how to molest children trumps community safety

    Are you saying that NAMBLA does not have freedom of speech?

    Because you don’t approve of the speech?

    Sorry, I’m not quite ready to live under the Code of Darrell. I don’t think that child molestation is going to take off like wildfire because some idiots talk about doing it. I think protection of children will be better served by attacking behavior, and acts, not thought or speech. That goes for all protections, actually.

    You’re an asshole authoritarian, Darrell. You want the authority to have the world your way. I am equally if not more determined to make sure you don’t get that authority.

    I don’t intend to lose such a battle to the likes of you.

  31. 31.

    Darrell

    December 26, 2006 at 11:55 pm

    Crack down = good, in the land of the free we welcome any and all cracking down by the government

    immigrants and ACLU = boo!

    Hey, liberals are the ones who invented political correctness. We can’t say “Merry Christmas” without being shouted down as Christian oppressors.

    We can’t challenge affirmative action without being called racists. Hilarious how you dishonest hypocrites project your own tendencies onto others.

  32. 32.

    ThymeZone

    December 26, 2006 at 11:55 pm

    Most employers do background checks and drug tests already

    Prove it. I would say you are not just wrong, you are wrong by a huge margin. “Most employers” do no such thing.

    Point to the facts which prove your idiotic assertion, or shut the fuck up and go away.

  33. 33.

    Darrell

    December 26, 2006 at 11:57 pm

    Are you saying that NAMBLA does not have freedom of speech?

    Because you don’t approve of the speech?

    I pray you freaks show how you really think to the American people come election time. Shout to the rooftops how protecting NAMBLA’s free speech rights was the right thing to do. Let everybody see who you really are.

  34. 34.

    ThymeZone

    December 26, 2006 at 11:58 pm

    We can’t challenge affirmative action without being called racists

    Poor you, Darrell. Maybe if you didn’t espouse the ideas of a Troglodyte and pimp stupid bellicosity in the guise of policy, abuse of human rights and American liberties in the guise of “protecting America,” and make fun of the idea that racism is alive and well in this country, and generally talk like a damned fool who has never been outside of the trailer park, you’d get more respect.

    Maybe.

  35. 35.

    ThymeZone

    December 26, 2006 at 11:59 pm

    Let everybody see who you really are.

    You want to have a contest between my views, and yours?

    Heh. Bring it, Darrell. You couldn’t sell a piece of ass on a troop train.

  36. 36.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 12:04 am

    The Bush administration has decided to propose listing the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, putting the U.S. government on record as saying that global warming could drive one of the world’s most recognizable animals out of existence.

    Breaking News: Not even the Bush Administration is as stupid about global warming as you are, Darrell.

    You might end up being the last redneck in the trailer park who doesn’t get it.

  37. 37.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 12:19 am

    I pray you freaks show how you really think to the American people come election time.

    Look around you, Darrell. We just had an election … how did that turn out for you?

    With all the horrors your onionhead government has created in the last six years, do you really think that fear of Nambla is what your side wants to hang its hat on for next time?

    Go for it. Really, get yourself a silkscreen shop and start making the anti-NAMBLA bumper stickers now.

  38. 38.

    Gold Star for Robot Boy

    December 27, 2006 at 12:49 am

    We can’t say “Merry Christmas” without being shouted down as Christian oppressors.

    OK, this is where I politely raise my voice.
    Fuck off, Darrell.

  39. 39.

    Tulkinghorn

    December 27, 2006 at 12:57 am

    What part of “illegal” alien do you not understand?

    What part of “civil”, as opposed to “criminal”, do you not understand? Can you even state the public policy rational for why the Federal Govt has exclusive jurisdiction over immigration (hint: look up the history of Chinese immigration, or just google “plenary power immigration”), and why it has been settled law for more than 50 years that deportation is a civil remedy and not a criminal punishment?

    Do you have any idea why this is a good idea, and that it limits the rights of non-Americans to appeal decisions made by the Justice Department?

    Since you clearly do not know anything about what you are talking about, consider this:

    Deportation, however severe its consequences, has been consistently classified as a civil rather than a criminal procedure. 22 Both of these doctrines as original proposals might be debatable, but both have been considered closed for many years and a body of statute and decisional law has been built upon them. In Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585, 591 , Mr. Justice Holmes, for the Court, said: “It is thoroughly established that Congress has power to order the deportation of aliens whose presence in the country it deems hurtful. The determination by facts that might constitute a crime under local law is not a conviction of crime, nor is the deportation a punishment; it is simply a refusal by the Government to harbor persons whom it does not want.”

    [ Footnote 22 ] Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 140 U.S. 698, 730 ; Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585, 591 ; Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 154 .

    HARISIADES v. SHAUGHNESSY, 342 U.S. 580 (1952)

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=342&invol=580

    Now think about what it means for a town in Pennsylvania to criminalize an issue where Congress has plenary power, and where federal statutes, with the affirmation of the USSC, have held immigration and deportation proceedings to be exclusively civil in character.

    To use the technical legal terminology, that is totally bogus.

  40. 40.

    demimondian

    December 27, 2006 at 1:02 am

    We don’t protect the right to promote social standards in this society. We protect the right to denigrate those standards, or to promote behaviors which don’t conform to those standards. We promote the right to speak in favor of extra-legal militias to round up non-white lawbreakers, whether those militias wear white sheets and ride horses, or wear Minuteman insignia and ride ATVs. We promote the right of fringe elements to promote dystopias as social paradises, whether those elements are the American Family Association or the CWA.

    Lunatics of all stripes are protect by the First Amendment, Darrell. The ACLU regularly takes on religious speech cases, and wins them — they actively go out into the evangelical community and canvass for new ones every year. Hell, the most appalling, wretched tripe is protected — even you are allowed to speak without fear of retribution. And that is a good thing, and one for which the ACLU has fought, and will gladly continue to fight.

  41. 41.

    Blue Shark

    December 27, 2006 at 2:04 am

    …At least Lou Dobbs “gets it” about electronic vote theft…you know the gift that gave us BushCo for another 4 years of death and destruction.

  42. 42.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 4:13 am

    Which sends me, via the horserace circlejerk at MSNBC, to FOX News where actual reporting is going on.

    There is something horribly wrong with that sentence.

  43. 43.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 4:15 am

    Not even you can be stupid enough not to understand that.

    You underestimate Darrell’s stupidity at your own peril.

  44. 44.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 4:17 am

    Hilarious how you dishonest hypocrites project your own tendencies onto others.

    It’s been awhile but there it is, Darrell’s Irony of the Day.

  45. 45.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 4:22 am

    Even a small shop has an HR type who can make a call to the SSA to see if a SS # is valid and matches with the photo ID.

    Shorter Darrell: I have no idea what the fuck I’m talking about.

    If you think every employer in the USA is going to call the SSA every time they have to hire someone…you’re insane or retarded. They don’t have the capacity as it is for their *normal* callers with questions/complaints about their SS checks, I’ve seen people wait on the line for six hours trying to get to a live human being.

    Unless this is the Darrell plan to push for Bush’s SS clusterfuck?

  46. 46.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 4:24 am

    Heh. Bring it, Darrell. You couldn’t sell a piece of ass on a troop train. to Mark Foley on a binger.

    Fixed.

  47. 47.

    lard lad

    December 27, 2006 at 4:25 am

    Hey, liberals are the ones who invented political correctness. We can’t say “Merry Christmas” without being shouted down as Christian oppressors.

    Godamighty… here comes Darrell, spewing this “War on Christmas” crap again. Please. I’ve been hearing this bullshit for way too long, so here’s my opportunity to vent. Apologies tendered to the rest of you in advance.

    I live and work in Berkeley, California… a city that the Darrells of the right know is filled to bursting with – how does he put it? – “liberal whackjobs.” I work in a bustling record store with a staff of 60 or so, every one of whom tilts to the left. At least half of us are fervent radicals. Certainly most who shop here could be called leftists.

    And yet I have never heard a single person, employee or customer, get bothered about the use of the phrase “Merry Christmas.” We have holiday decorations in the store, we play Xmas music aplenty during the last two weeks beforehand… and nobody raises hell about being the victim of “Christian oppression.” The only goddamned time I even hear the War on Xmas discussed is when people laugh (or bitch, depending) about a stupid fucking issue it is.

    Fundamentalists love the War, though… because it fills their coffers with lucre from dimbulbs who really do think that left-wingers want to raid their homes, smash their Christmas trees, violate the holly, shit on the presents, then wipe their asses with pages torn from the Bible.

    And chumps like Darrell eat their cash-raising nonsense up… but then, why not? Nothing gives a good Christian a spiritual stiffy like being persecuted, the way Jesus was.

  48. 48.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 4:27 am

    But the ACLU has made the decision that NANBLA’s freedom of speech to instruct pedophiles on how to molest children trumps community safety.

    And the Republican Leadership made the decision that hitting on underage pages trumps community safety, national security and common human decency.

    What’s your point?

  49. 49.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 4:29 am

    Apologies tendered to the rest of you in advance.

    None needed. We welcome the ritual flaying and burning of the Darrells.

  50. 50.

    Pharniel

    December 27, 2006 at 8:54 am

    None needed. We welcome the ritual flaying and burning of the Darrells.

    Y’know, the Aztec’s would wear the skin of the sacrifices to appease Xipe…sadly I think if you offered up the likes of Darrell you’d get a plauge of beatles that enters via-various sensative orifices and then eats you from the inside or something.

    anyway. yes. the judge was right.
    the aclu protects everyone
    and just because you don’t like what people are saying doesn’t mean they don’t get to say it.
    welcome to america.

  51. 51.

    Pharniel

    December 27, 2006 at 9:01 am

    Nothing gives a good Christian a spiritual stiffy like being persecuted, the way Jesus was.

    Y’know…I never considered the passive-agressive, attention whoring ‘martyr’ angle before…..it seems to go well with the death cult on permiant hold that alot of evengelical curches have going. Y’know, the whole ‘rapture, any day now'(TM) thing going on. Don’t worry about tommarow, The Rapture(TM)* will be here to take care of your problems….
    Seriously, it’s like people don’t even read the bible. the Anti-christ is described as belived to be the most devout and wonderfull person….y’know, exactly how the cults of personality view thier respective ‘leaders’….hmm. i’ll have to look into that again….Revelations as an allagory against cults of personality and the basic behavior of the american evangelical movement (who are heretics according to the Nicene conventions, BTW, in the same way that Mormons are)

    *to co-opt an oft heard refrian: “The prophicies have been a bit off lately…the world’s ended six times this year alone…”

  52. 52.

    Jay C

    December 27, 2006 at 9:04 am

    Hey, liberals are the ones who invented political correctness. We can’t say “Merry Christmas” without being shouted down as Christian oppressors.

    That’s a great observation, Darrell: now, could you perhaps please provide us with any actual examples of you (or anyone else of your direct acquaintance) being “shouted down” this last Christmas season (or any other time)? Or, for that matter, any credible examples of this activity occurring anywhere else in this country (Outside, of course, of the rantings of hyperventilating right-wing bloggers)?

    Oh, and re your 11:38 post: the correct term is “trumps”, not “triumphs”. Even in the freewheeling spaces of the Balloon Juice comments, it will greatly help to make your case (assuming you have one to make) if you don’t come across as a semiliterate buffoon.

  53. 53.

    Steve

    December 27, 2006 at 9:38 am

    If you think every employer in the USA is going to call the SSA every time they have to hire someone…you’re insane or retarded. They don’t have the capacity as it is for their normal callers with questions/complaints about their SS checks, I’ve seen people wait on the line for six hours trying to get to a live human being.

    Good answer. Clearly, what’s needed is for the SSA to hire a few illegal immigrants to staff the phones.

  54. 54.

    Zifnab

    December 27, 2006 at 9:41 am

    Darrell:

    So explain for us zifnab, the “limits” of a municipality to enforce immigration laws. I’ll await your ‘informed’ reply.

    Me:

    There are several thousand miles and not a few states between Allentown, PA and the Mexican boarder. Do the illegal aliens just get kicked across the county line where the local jurisdiction ends? Maybe let Philidephia or Harrisburg handle it from there? How many times can a town pass the buck, kicking an immigrant down the curb through municipal jail after municipal jail, before they crap him out onto his native soil?

    So, the short of it is that Allentown’s jurisdiction ends at the edge of… Allentown. Which means they can’t deport illegals if they catch them. They can’t create some sort of Allentown license with the equivalent power of a US Passport or citizenship. And, unless I’m mistaken, they don’t have the access to federal databases to verify citizenship. So even if they do find a suspected illegal, the best they can do is turn said suspect over to the INS for the feds to deal with.

    Passing laws that require businesses to assume the roles that the municipality itself cannot fulfill is equally untenable. And that’s the real crux. Businesses aren’t being fined for not checking IDs, they’re being fined for employing illegals. Renters aren’t being fined for failing to verify citizenship, they’re being fined for renting to illegals. Thus, the burden falls on the business or the renter to do what the municipality has neither the right nor the power to do itself.

  55. 55.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 9:45 am

    what’s needed is for the SSA to hire a few illegal immigrants to staff the phones.

    This whole problem goes away when Americans finally learn that it’s a good thing to raise and school their kids to grow up to pick lettuce and carry hod.

  56. 56.

    Zifnab

    December 27, 2006 at 9:47 am

    And chumps like Darrell eat their cash-raising nonsense up… but then, why not? Nothing gives a good Christian a spiritual stiffy like being persecuted, the way Jesus was.

    I guess the standing question is “How much has Darrell donated to fighting the Crusade Against the War on Christmas?” visavi Bill O’Reily bumper stickers and Pat Robertson evangelical arobics videos.

  57. 57.

    The Other Steve

    December 27, 2006 at 10:56 am

    Have we considered invading Mexico and introducing them to Democracy?

  58. 58.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 11:00 am

    Have we considered invading Mexico and introducing them to Democracy?

    I like this idea. For once, can we invade a country where we can eat their food?

  59. 59.

    jh

    December 27, 2006 at 11:43 am

    This stood out to me:

    The measures, approved by City Council last month, would have imposed fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and denied business permits to companies that give them jobs. They also would have required tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.

    A permit to rent an apartment? Would this be imposed on all Hazelton residents or just the ‘Hispanic looking’ ones? The implications here are chilling in the extreme.

    Hazelton’s scheme may be fascist and idiotic but it does inadvertently point to the primary root of the problem : EMPLOYER DEMAND FOR EASILY EXPLOITABLE WORKERS.

    Drying up demand for this easy source of off the books labor is the only way to curb the influx of millions. Right now, employers are advertising for illegal workers in Mexico and point south. Billboards, radio ads, you name it. The result? People come here by the millions ready to sell themselves into servitude to people who have made it abundantly clear that they will employ them, no matter what the law says.

    The only way I see to short circuit this ecosystem is federal intervention on two fronts.

    1. Amnesty and citizenship for all illegals currenlty in the country, with special focus on those with American born children. Make them real citizens with real documents, get them voting and get them on employers books paying all the taxes and deductions everybody else does.

    Once they are in the system, it will be harder to get away with the low wage serfdom that is prevalent today with the added bonus of newly minted citizens living much more healthy, stable lives as well as directly contributing to the sustainment of the republic.

    2. Any employer who has employees who aren’t on the books needs to be incentivized to do so, failing that, they need to face FEDERAL indictment and all the hardship that goes along with it.

  60. 60.

    LaurenceB

    December 27, 2006 at 11:49 am

    For legal Hispanics, the problem with this law is pretty obvious. Once it gets enacted, landlords will take the easy way out – if you look like you could be illegal, you don’t get the apartment. For the landlord, its a no-brainer. No need to check papers, no risk of prosecution. But for legal hispanics – like many of my friends and relatives – it sucks big time.

    Thank God for the ACLU.

  61. 61.

    VidaLoca

    December 27, 2006 at 11:49 am

    Have we considered invading Mexico and introducing them to Democracy?

    For once, can we invade a country where we can eat their food?

    They have oil down there too. It’ll be a twofer!

  62. 62.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 11:54 am

    Darrell-

    From the ACLU statement regarding the “NAMBLA” case:

    “What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

    “It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.”

    If you can’t get on board with such a basic principle, man, I weep for the future.

    You said: “But the ACLU has made the decision that NANBLA’s freedom of speech to instruct pedophiles on how to molest children trumps community safety.”

    Actually, the “community safety” limits on free speech comes from Shenck v. U.S., and don’t really exist. They were coined by later-Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes to justify imprisoning anti-war protesters who printed leaflets that advocated young men refuse the draft during WWI. Shenck was later overturned.

  63. 63.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 11:59 am

    Steve Says:

    If you think every employer in the USA is going to call the SSA every time they have to hire someone…you’re insane or retarded. They don’t have the capacity as it is for their normal callers with questions/complaints about their SS checks, I’ve seen people wait on the line for six hours trying to get to a live human being.

    Good answer.

    Good answer to a halfwit maybe. Steve, TZ, TimF and virtually every leftist posting here, out of willfull ignorance all take it as an article of faith that employer validation of the authenticity of SS #’s for their employees is some overwhelming task which is not ‘practical’ or feasible. They see no inconsistency in the support of ID authentication when selling alcohol to minors, or in hiring minors to work in adult entertainment. Yet for all other employers, such minor validation requirement to make a good faith effort in validating SS# authenticity is some insurmountable obstacle which they refuse to even discuss.

    They refuse to discuss it for good reason.. because the truth undercuts the foundation of their “argument”… which is that any such validation or enforcement is too much and ‘impractical’

    For the ignorant leftists, I present Exhibit A

    There are two Internet verification options you can use to verify that your employee names and Social Security numbers match Social Security’s records. You can:

    Verify up to 10 names and SSNs (per screen) online and receive immediate results. This option is ideal to verify new hires.
    OR

    Upload batch files of up to 250,000 names and SSNs and usually receive results the next government business day. This option is ideal if you want to verify an entire payroll database or if you hire a large number of workers at a time.

    Backed by exhibit B, and a gazillion other similar services which offer SS# verfiication at the touch of a button.

  64. 64.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 12:04 pm

    Zifnab nails it on the head: “Businesses aren’t being fined for not checking IDs, they’re being fined for employing illegals. Renters aren’t being fined for failing to verify citizenship, they’re being fined for renting to illegals.”

    The laws the ACLU and the court opposed are not targeting behavior. They are targeting a classification of people. If Allentown had its way, illegals wouldn’t be charged with “obtaining employment via perfidy,” but would be denied housing, employment, education, or medical aid because of who they are. Surely even the most brain-dead can see the problem with that?

  65. 65.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 12:06 pm

    They see no inconsistency in the support of ID authentication when selling alcohol to minors

    Again, you lie. “Authenticity” of ID is not on the table at alcohol sales time. Only a reasonable examination of the ID, and a reasonable check that the ID belongs to the person presenting it, are required.

    For example, a 12-year-old probably wouldn’t get away with the ruse, for obvious reasons. But 19-year-olds with fake ID buy alcoholic beverages every day.

    Is this your new schtick? Just make up some bullshit lie and keep repeating it? Because I’m here every day to tell the world that you are full of crap.

  66. 66.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 12:08 pm

    If you can’t get on board with such a basic principle, man, I weep for the future.

    The leftists here are aptly demonstrating why they really are extremist as hell. I just wish you’d scream your positions like those on the support of NAMBLA’s ‘freedom’ to publish websites instructing pedophiles how to rape children without getting caught.. shout it to the rooftops so that the rest of Americans can see you for what you are.

    Actually, the “community safety” limits on free speech comes from Shenck v. U.S., and don’t really exist.

    Can you shout fire in a crowded theater? Can you threaten to kill someone?

    There are no absolute freedoms, including freedom of speech. Absolute freedom = chaos.. there needs to be parameters. If leftists here had even an ounce of pride, they would hang their heads in shame that something so basic has to be spelled out for you.

    Hence, law enforcement shutting down NAMBLA’s site, actions which most leftists here oppose.. because NAMBLA was advocating the criminal rape of small children.. you defend NAMBLA’s “rights” to do that, as if you all are some noble defenders of the constitution..

  67. 67.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 12:11 pm

    Again, you lie. “Authenticity” of ID is not on the table at alcohol sales time. Only a reasonable examination of the ID, and a reasonable check that the ID belongs to the person presenting it, are required.

    I’m not “lying”. In fact, I agree with this particular statement of yours. My argument is that blind acceptance of a photo-less social security card without any checks whatsoever on the validity, does not constitute a “reasonable” check. The crux of your argument and the other leftists here, is that validating the authenticity of ss #’s is some huge impractical task. I believe that leftist argument has been crushed.

  68. 68.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 12:13 pm

    “Can you shout fire in a crowded theater? Can you threaten to kill someone?”

    Sigh. Did you even LOOK UP Schenk before you replied, you utter tool? That’s where “shouting fire in a crowded theater” comes from. Justice Holmes wrote it and it was rejected by the Supreme Court. You can threaten to kill someone so long as you can’t reasonably have the means, opportunity, and a plan to follow through.

    Are you 18 or something, sitting in your dorm room with your pud hanging out of your pants while you do this? God, you’re an idiot.

  69. 69.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 12:16 pm

    The laws the ACLU and the court opposed are not targeting behavior. They are targeting a classification of people

    Why shouldn’t illegal aliens be classified as a group of people who are here in violation of our country’s immigration laws?

    Since only the ‘brain dead’ can’t see it, perhaps you can enlighten us further. I look forward to your ‘insightful’ reply, as you seem to really know what you’re talking about.

  70. 70.

    jh

    December 27, 2006 at 12:16 pm

    Darrell can’t read his own links. But we knew that already.

    While the service is available to all employers and third-party submitters, it can only be used to verify current or former employees and only for wage reporting (Form W-2) purposes.

    So that means the market solutions are the only viable ones to screen applicants for employment or housing. If Darrell thinks that every mom and pop landlord or shop is going to be using these systems he clearly hasn’t been out of his mom’s basement.

    But that’s begging the issue. The objection here was that even if you can get over the logistical ethical hurdles of verifying citizenship of everybody without bringing down the SSA’s databases or lapsing into racial profiling , there’s still the problem of what the city of Hazelton wanted to do with its law.

    That is, impose criminal penalties where federal law states immigration violations are a civil defense.

    while

    purging the municipality of undocumented citizens without any regard as to what the practical implications might be.

    Darrell,

    I’m sure you think this discussion is more evidence that “leftists” don’t get it (it being right wing appeals to authoritah) , but it is really your inability to synthsize logic with facts that paints you into the corners you often find yourself in.

  71. 71.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 12:20 pm

    You can threaten to kill someone so long as you can’t reasonably have the means, opportunity, and a plan to follow through

    So if you started screaming that you wanted to kill me, you’re telling us that wouldn’t be considered assault, just because you didn’t have a gun or knife on you? I mean “reasonable” means and opportunity opens a door the size of the grand canyon.

  72. 72.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 12:21 pm

    jh thinks he has a “point”. How many of you other halfwits are similarly stupid?

  73. 73.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 12:24 pm

    while

    purging the municipality of undocumented citizens without any regard as to what the practical implications might be.

    you mean enforcing existing law in an attempt to do something about illegal aliens who are breaking the laws of our country?

  74. 74.

    jh

    December 27, 2006 at 12:26 pm

    Darrell,

    Since you can’t be bothered to read the links you post, I would advise you against basing your arguments of legalities, specifics or semantics as you are clearly working at a disadvangtage.

    Instead I will give you the easy way out. Here’s the set-up and the question:

    Most will agree that illegal immigration is a problem. Above I outlined the approach I would take. What would you propose doing to curb it?

    (this oughta be good)

  75. 75.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 12:31 pm

    My argument is that blind acceptance of a photo-less social security card without any checks whatsoever on the validity, does not constitute a “reasonable” check

    Get a clue for God’s sake. First of all, a “photo” SS card is just a card that takes 3 mins longer to fake and costs ten bucks more at the fake id store. You live in Houston? I guaran-friggin-tee ya that there are half a dozen well known fake id operations in your town and that they are busy as we speak. Your “solution” is worthless.

    The photo-SS card is a National ID card. Do your own research on the advisability and feasability of that idea. And even if it does, the SS card will not be the basis of it. Already, a huge ID theft industry exists mainly on the vulnerabilities caused by overuse of the SS number in our systems. Your advice would only make it worse.

    What part of “there is no easy and cheap solution” don’t you fucking get?

  76. 76.

    jh

    December 27, 2006 at 12:31 pm

    you mean enforcing existing law in an attempt to do something about illegal aliens who are breaking the laws of our country?

    By enacting laws that will absolutely lead to racial profiling?

    Yeah, that’s always worked out so well in this country.

  77. 77.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 12:33 pm

    That is, impose criminal penalties where federal law states immigration violations are a civil defense.

    jh, in 2006 alone, hundreds (if not thousands) of CRIMINAL charges have been already filed against companies accused of hiring illegal aliens.

    I’ll bet you consider yourself ‘informed’, don’t you?

  78. 78.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 12:34 pm

    “So if you started screaming that you wanted to kill me, you’re telling us that wouldn’t be considered assault, just because you didn’t have a gun or knife on you?”

    No, because assault requires me to have touched you, you poon. Verbal assault doesn’t exist.

  79. 79.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 12:34 pm

    enforcing existing law

    Can’t. Be. Done.

    That’s why it hasn’t been done lo these many years. It’s not practical.

    Do you think a law is some magical thing, Darrell?

    Go back to the Federalist Papers, dumbshit. A law is only for real if it can be reasonably and effectively enforced, otherwise it’s just rhetoric.

    Hell, they knew that 250 years ago. Time you figured it out.

  80. 80.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 12:34 pm

    By enacting laws that will absolutely lead to racial profiling?

    Cite for us the section in the law that you are characterizing as “absolutely” leading to racial profiling.

  81. 81.

    les

    December 27, 2006 at 12:36 pm

    is this your new schtick? Just make up some bullshit lie and keep repeating it?

    Thymezone, I thought this was always D’s schtick. I haven’t seen anything new today, though he may be going for a new stupidity level record–hard to tell.

  82. 82.

    jh

    December 27, 2006 at 12:37 pm

    Oh and one more thing Darrell,

    Enforcing existing immigration law would mean, Oh perhaps requiring the reporting of undocumented individuals to I.C.E.

    And you do realize that the levying of penalties for the violation of Federal immigration law is a FEDERAL right, not some podunk Pennsylvania town’s?

  83. 83.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 12:42 pm

    enforcing existing law

    Can’t. Be. Done.

    That’s why it hasn’t been done lo these many years. It’s not practical

    Nope, it’s practical and easy, as I have already demonstrated. Employers can do push button internet checks on the authenticity of ss#’s and driver’s licenses too for that matter. It’s not much effort to require employers to show proof that they ran a “reasonable” check on ID presented to them by their employees. All it takes is a little enforcement. Once employers figure out that hiring illegal aliens is risky business, many/most of these illegals will self-deport, as employment opportunities dry up.

  84. 84.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 12:42 pm

    “jh, in 2006 alone, hundreds (if not thousands) of CRIMINAL charges have been already filed against companies accused of hiring illegal aliens.

    “I’ll bet you consider yourself ‘informed’, don’t you?”

    Darrell, you are aware that those criminal charges are for crimes like identity theft, trafficking, or money laundering, and not employing illegals, I’m sure. I mean, it’s not like those facts poke giant holes in your position.

  85. 85.

    jh

    December 27, 2006 at 12:43 pm

    Cite for us the section in the law that you are characterizing as “absolutely” leading to racial profiling.

    If allowed to stand, the whole law is going to lead to racial profiling.

    As someone pointed out earlier, landlords just aren’t going to take the chance of renting to anyone who looks “foreign” (meaning Hispanic).

  86. 86.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 12:48 pm

    Darrell, you are aware that those criminal charges are for crimes like identity theft, trafficking, or money laundering, and not employing illegals, I’m sure. I mean, it’s not like those facts poke giant holes in your position.

    It is a crime to knowingly hire illegal aliens. You have asserted that it is only a civil matter. You were wrong, and now you dishonestly backpeddle without admitting how wrong you were. Typical leftist..

  87. 87.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 12:50 pm

    If allowed to stand, the whole law is going to lead to racial profiling.

    In other words, when called on it, you are unable to cite the portion of the law which in your words would “absolutely” lead to racial profiling. You made it up for dramatic effect, and are now to dishonest to admit that you simply made it up.

    Just so you know, many illegal aliens are not ‘hispanic’ looking.

  88. 88.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 12:51 pm

    Nope, it’s practical and easy, as I have already demonstrated.

    Nope, impossible, as demonstrated by 54 years of failure, under Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush One and Bush Two. That’s 34 out of 54 years of Republican administration, and absolutely zero effectiveness against this problem.

    Your current Republican administration is opposed to your view.

    What are you thinking? That you are smarter than all those people who have gone before you? That stamping your feet solves the problem?

  89. 89.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 12:56 pm

    What are you thinking? That you are smarter than all those people who have gone before you?

    I don’t think one has to be particularly smart to see that enforcement of immigration laws by requiring employers to authenticate SS#’s would go a long way toward solving our current problem – approx. 13 million illegal aliens

  90. 90.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 1:01 pm

    authenticate SS#’s would go a long wa

    Well, you’re wrong. You are talking about verification of identity, not SS numbers, because verification of the number means basically nothing.

    That means background checks. That means cost, expense, red tape.

    Read my lips: Nah. Gonna. Happen.

  91. 91.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 1:02 pm

    I see that TZ in typical dishonest fashion, has avoided the fact that “reasonable” SS# authentication can be done quickly and easily via internet. He just changes the subject..

  92. 92.

    jh

    December 27, 2006 at 1:05 pm

    In other words, when called on it, you are unable to cite the portion of the law which in your words would “absolutely” lead to racial profiling. You made it up for dramatic effect, and are now to dishonest to admit that you simply made it up.

    In other words you don’t have any common sense. If you think this law is going to be applied equally to illegal immigrants from say, Canada and Mexico, you are a fool.

    Nope, it’s practical and easy, as I have already demonstrated.

    What with the links you posted without reading? Whatever motherfucker. Here, let me enlighten you to the benefits of reading something before citing it.

    From Darrell’s link to the SS Admin’s site [emphasis added]:

    *************************************************
    PROPER USE OF SSNVS

    SSNVS should only be used for the purpose for which it is intended.

    Social Security will verify SSNs and names solely to ensure the records of current or former employees are correct for the purpose of completing Internal Revenue Service Form W-2 (Wage and Tax Statement).

    It is illegal to use the service to verify SSNs of potential new hires or contractors or in the preparation of tax returns.

    Company policy concerning the use of SSNVS should be applied consistently to all workers; for example:

    If used for newly hired workers, verify information on all newly hired workers.

    If used to verify information on other workers in your database, verify the information for all workers in the entire database.

    Third-party use of SSNVS is strictly limited to organizations that contract with employers to either handle the wage reporting responsibilities or perform an administrative function directly related to annual wage reporting responsibilities of hired employees. It is suggested that contracts between the third-party and the employer stipulate that the functions being performed by the third-party contractor relate to wage reporting responsibilities and SSNVS should only be used for wage reporting responsibilities for hired employees. It is not proper to use SSNVS for non-wage reporting purposes, such as identity, credit checks, mortgage applications, etc.

    Anyone who knowingly and willfully uses SSNVS to request or obtain information from Social Security under false pretenses violates Federal law and may be punished by a fine, imprisonment or both.

    Social Security may ban you and/or the company you represent from the use of SSNVS if Social Security determines there has been misuse of the service. [see Darrell’s other link]

    Social Security will advise you when the names and SSNs you submitted do not match our records.

    This response does not imply that you or your employee intentionally provided incorrect information about the employee’s name or SSN.

    This response does not make any statement about your employee’s immigration status.

    This response is not a basis, in and of itself, to take any adverse action against the employee, such as laying off, suspending, firing, or discriminating against the employee.

    If you rely only on the verification information Social Security provides to justify adverse action against a worker, you may violate State or Federal law and be subject to legal consequences.
    *********************************************

    This has been another episode of “Debunking Darrell’s Bullshit”

    Thanks for tuning in.

  93. 93.

    RandyH

    December 27, 2006 at 1:07 pm

    These discussions in the comments at this blog are great stuff. More entertaining than the blog itself, actually. And TimF often gets the great ones like this going by inviting people to “discuss” topics like why he wants to poke himself in the eye with a fork. It’s amazing how, when folks like Darrell paint themselves into a corner on any issue, they inevitably scream about some bullshit like religious persecution of Christians in America that doesn’t actually exist.

    Hey, liberals are the ones who invented political correctness. We can’t say “Merry Christmas” without being shouted down as Christian oppressors.

    I have never seen someone “shouted down” for saying “Merry Christmas” but I have seen people shouted down (by people like Darrell) for saying the more appropriate “Happy Holidays” when they are unsure of others’ religious persuasion. It’s not “political correctness,” it’s just “being polite.”

    I like what Lard Lad had to say about the “War” on Christmas:

    Fundamentalists love the War, though… because it fills their coffers with lucre from dimbulbs who really do think that left-wingers want to raid their homes, smash their Christmas trees, violate the holly, shit on the presents, then wipe their asses with pages torn from the Bible.

    And chumps like Darrell eat their cash-raising nonsense up… but then, why not? Nothing gives a good Christian a spiritual stiffy like being persecuted, the way Jesus was.

    Happy Holidays, Darrell!

  94. 94.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 1:08 pm

    “reasonable” SS# authentication can be done quickly and easily via internet

    No, it cannot. There is no quick and easy way to verify that a person in front of you has or does not have a particular identity. If you think I am wrong, contact your local police and sherrif departments and ask them. They can and do spend weeks trying to ID people and often fail. And they’re experts.

    You think you can automate the process? Go away, man, you are too stupid to play here.

    You are going to need (a) a national ID system not based on SS numbers, and (b) bulletproof biometric identification of 300 million people.

    Good luck. If the politics of it don’t stop you, the cost and hassle will. You won’t see it any time soon. Forget it.

  95. 95.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 1:11 pm

    Social Security may ban you and/or the company you represent from the use of SSNVS if Social Security determines there has been misuse of the service. [see Darrell’s other link]

    Duh! If an employer shares a SS# or other ‘misuse”, they would be in violation of the law. The SS site is there to validate the authenticity of SS#’s. What is so difficult for you halfwits to understand about that?

    And tell me again how the hiring of illegal aliens isn’t a crime? You all are sooo well informed.

  96. 96.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 1:15 pm

    You are going to need (a) a national ID system not based on SS numbers, and (b) bulletproof biometric identification of 300 million people.

    That’s only for absolute verification. We’re discussing, to use your phrase, a “reasonable” check on the authenticity of SS#’s. It’s not going to catch 100% of the fraud, but by validating whether or not the SS# is valid, along with a name and age of the holder of the SS#, that would go one hell of a long way towards verification.

    That you all oppose such reasonable measures, screaming “racial profiling” bullshit, aptly demonstrates how extremist so many of you truly are.

  97. 97.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 1:16 pm

    I have never seen someone “shouted down” for saying “Merry Christmas”

    And I have never seen anyone scream booh over immigrants here legally. Read the post I was responding too.

  98. 98.

    jh

    December 27, 2006 at 1:20 pm

    Can you read Darrell?

    A few other misuses of the system:

    1. It is not proper to use SSNVS for non-wage reporting purposes, such as identity, credit checks, mortgage applications, etc.

    2. This response is not a basis, in and of itself, to take any adverse action against the employee, such as laying off, suspending, firing, or discriminating against the employee.

    3. If you rely only on the verification information Social Security provides to justify adverse action against a worker, you may violate State or Federal law and be subject to legal consequences.

    Get a clue clown.

    As for the illegality of hiring illegal immigrants: Yes it is. Under FEDERAL Law. Why is Hazelton passing redundant laws?

  99. 99.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 1:24 pm

    As for the illegality of hiring illegal immigrants: Yes it is. Under FEDERAL Law

    And under Hazelton law. Unless their immigration laws are unconstitutional.. which is doubtful, as they appear to mirror federal law. In your ignorance, you don’t seem to be aware that state and local govts. are free to enact their own laws, unless those laws are prohibited by the constitution. Just so you know.

  100. 100.

    jh

    December 27, 2006 at 1:27 pm

    It’s not going to catch 100% of the fraud, but by validating whether or not the SS# is valid, along with a name and age of the holder of the SS#, that would go one hell of a long way towards verification.

    Using what system?

    The one you linked to is only for use in preparing wage statements and other HR administration.

    Using the SSNVS to determine whether or not some is legally employable is ILLEGAL.

    TZ is correct. Verifying the citizenship/legality of an individual is more involved than just verifying a SSN. In order for it to be effective, it will require some kind of National ID card.

    I don’t know about Darrell, but I’ll pass on legislating Big Brother into existence until we get some more checks on the executive branch.

  101. 101.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 1:28 pm

    The SS site is there to validate the authenticity of SS#’s. What is so difficult for you halfwits to understand about that?

    The SS site is for people to check on their *own* numbers, usually in regards to benefits earned. Not only would having every Tom, Dick and Harry employer trying to check every new employee swamp the current system, it opens people’s SSNs to easier Identity Theft.

    Why do such simple concepts have such a hard time penetrating Darrell’s thick skull?

  102. 102.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 1:31 pm

    And I have never seen anyone scream booh over immigrants here legally.

    Then you’re blind or lying again as usual.

    Your lords and masters in the GOP are trying to duck yet *another* of their own being caught screaming and ranting about ‘we have to stop the Muslims from coming here before more of them are elected’.

  103. 103.

    jh

    December 27, 2006 at 1:32 pm

    i Unless their immigration laws are unconstitutional.

    Which is exactly why the Federal judged put the 90 day injunction in place.

    He believes there is a good chance Hazelton’s laws are unconstitutional.

    You would know this if you read anything besides the bullshit you post here.

  104. 104.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 1:33 pm

    The larger point which leftists are too dishonest to acknowledge, is that systems are ALREADY IN PLACE to quickly and easily verify the authenticity of SS#’s. We could easily require employers to check new and current employees against a database, which could be done via internet. Fast, easy, practical.

    No doubt most of you arguing with me here are too ignorant to know that we not only have an easy-to-acess database using SSA’s database of SS #’s, but we also have a database in place with immigrants’ biometric data (fingerprint and retinal scans), as every immigrant who comes here legally through our airports (and harbors?) must submit to providing this information. We could open this database up as well. I saw Microsoft had a fingerprint authentication device for PC’s on sale for $19 not long ago, so please don’t give me more lies about how that biometric fingerprint technology isn’t already cheap and easy to use for verification.

    It would be easy, fast, and practical to require employers to verify the authenticity of their employees’ ss# and identify. This flies in the face of the arguments presented by TimF and others that it’s not “practical”. Bullshit. That’s nothing more than dishonest excuse making and those making that argument should admit it.

  105. 105.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 1:33 pm

    “It is a crime to knowingly hire illegal aliens. You have asserted that it is only a civil matter. You were wrong, and now you dishonestly backpeddle without admitting how wrong you were. Typical leftist..”

    Darrell, did you even read that Wikipedia post? It’s a textbook civil infraction, you poon.

  106. 106.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 1:34 pm

    It is illegal to use the service to verify SSNs of potential new hires or contractors or in the preparation of tax returns.

    Welcome to Planet Earth, Darrell.

    Now get the fuck out.

  107. 107.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 1:35 pm

    The SS site is for people to check on their own numbers

    Re-read the site you dumbass

  108. 108.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 1:39 pm

    Darrell, did you even read that Wikipedia post? It’s a textbook civil infraction, you poon

    Listen up shit for brains, it is a CRIME which can involve jailtime, to hire illegal aliens. A defendent in civil cases can NEVER be incarcerted over a civil case. If you have a shred of honestly you would admit that you’re wrong. But you don’t, and you won’t. More evidence that not one of the leftists posting here today are arguing in good faith.

  109. 109.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 1:40 pm

    “he larger point which leftists are too dishonest to acknowledge, is that systems are ALREADY IN PLACE to quickly and easily verify the authenticity of SS#’s. We could easily require employers to check new and current employees against a database, which could be done via internet. Fast, easy, practical.”

    And those systems that are already in place are ILLEGAL to use in the manner you want, as jh pointed out. Therefore, the ACLU and the courts were CORRECT in striking down the Hazeltown municipal law. If you want to change the law, advocate THAT. You can’t justify illegally using a federal system to violate a federal law in order to fulfill a municipal code! You cannot argue against a legally correct opinion by stating what you want the law to be! For the love of all that is good and decent, please stop typing.

  110. 110.

    LaurenceB

    December 27, 2006 at 1:44 pm

    Once again…

    The most obvious practical affect of enacting a law such as this is that it will spur descriminatory rental practices against those who are Hispanic-looking. This is indisputable.

    For those who are Hispanic or may look Hispanic, you should think long and hard before supporting laws like this one.

  111. 111.

    jh

    December 27, 2006 at 1:44 pm

    It would be easy, fast, and practical to require employers to verify the authenticity of their employees’ ss# and identify.

    You keep asserting this with no evidence.

    Your own links don’t support your theories and anyone with any experience in law enforcement or security will tell you that it’s not “easy and simple”.

    What it will require is a National ID Card.

    Just to give you an idea, The Federal Government has been trying implement a standardized ID card since 9/11. It is now December 2006.

    That’s for 1.8 million people.

    Try doing it for 300 million.

  112. 112.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 1:45 pm

    And those systems that are already in place are ILLEGAL to use in the manner you want, as jh pointed out.

    Once more, for the halfwits:

    Identify Invalid SSNs: those that have not been issued

    Expired SSNs: those that belong to a deceased person

    Invalid and expired SSNs will be updated every month with the latest information from the Social Security Administration

    Information is provided that will substantiate the “probable age” of the individual

    Not illegal. Employers have every right validate the identity and background of their employees.

  113. 113.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 1:47 pm

    Why shouldn’t illegal aliens be classified as a group of people who are here in violation of our country’s immigration laws?

    And how do you visually identify an ‘illegal’ as opposed to a legal alien or nationalized citizen? Your only solution so far involves risking the SSNs of potentially every person who ever tries to apply for a job and *fails* to recognize that it is not a feasible solution. Never heard of Work Visas, have you?

  114. 114.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 1:49 pm

    Darrell Says: Re-read the site you dumbass
    It is illegal to use the service to verify SSNs of potential new hires or contractors or in the preparation of tax returns.

    Hello Dumbass Darrell.

  115. 115.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 1:49 pm

    The SS site is for people to check on their own numbers

    Can we have some bi-partisan agreement that TengFool is one stupidass MF? even by leftist standards

  116. 116.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 1:51 pm

    Score one for Darrell, sort of:

    From The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986:

    “(1) CRIMINAL PENALTY. — Any person or entity which engages in a pattern or practice of violations of subsection (a)(1)(A) or (a)(2) shall be fined not more than $3,000 for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom such a violation occurs, imprisoned for not more than six months for the enitre pattern or practice, or both, notwithstanding the provisions of any other Federal law relating to fine levels.”

    However:

    “(2) CIVIL PENALTY. — Any person or entity which is determined, after notice and opportunity for an administrative hearing, to have violated paragraph (1) shall be subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation and to an administrative order requiring the return of any amounts received in violation of such paragraph to the employee or, if the employee cannot be located, to the general fund of the Treasury.”

    It would appear that the government has discretion in this matter to impose civil or criminal penalties. Also, immigration is a matter of federal law – Hazelton had no jurisdiction. So, in substance of the federal law, Darrell is right, but he’s using it to argue in defense of the municipal law, which isn’t. I’ll be generous and give him a wash.

  117. 117.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 1:54 pm

    Shorter Darrell: I can’t argue the point so I must resort to an obvious distraction.

  118. 118.

    jh

    December 27, 2006 at 1:55 pm

    Employers have every right validate the identity and background of their employees.

    And applicants too? Wrong.

    For the last time Darrell, if the company you linked to is using the SSA’s database to screen potential employees, it is probably breaking the law. If it using the information to take adverse action against existing employees… From the Social Security Administration itself:


    1. It is not proper to use SSNVS for non-wage reporting purposes, such as identity, credit checks, mortgage applications, etc.

    2. This response is not a basis, in and of itself, to take any adverse action against the employee, such as laying off, suspending, firing, or discriminating against the employee.

    3. If you rely only on the verification information Social Security provides to justify adverse action against a worker, you may violate State or Federal law and be subject to legal consequences.

    I’m sorry if I take the word of a Federal administration over that of an online vendor I’ve never heard of.

  119. 119.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 1:56 pm

    So, in substance of the federal law, Darrell is right

    Thank you for that, but there you go again making untrue assertions by claiming that Hazelton has no right to enact it’s own immigration enforcement laws.

    Local govts are free to enact and enforce their own laws, even immigration laws, as long as the laws they enact are not in violation of the US constitution.. or in the case of Hazelton, PA, not in violation of US constitution or PA state law. Given that the immigration laws they passed are nearly identical to federal law, it unlikely that their immigration laws are unconstitutional.

    That’s what you’re hanging your hat on?

  120. 120.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 1:59 pm

    The SS site is for people to check on their own numbers

    http://www.ssa.gov/

    Would Darrell like to eat his crow now or after his feet are extracted first?

  121. 121.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 1:59 pm

    Darrell said:

    “Not illegal. Employers have every right validate the identity and background of their employees.”

    The Social Security Administration said:

    “It is illegal to use the service to verify SSNs of potential new hires or contractors or in the preparation of tax returns.”

    Jesus H. Christ on a stick with a side of pickles. Darrell, I think you’re confusing the right to conduct background checks with a the obligation to do so. If you want to mandate that all employers MUST use the SSN website to verify citizenship (and what to do about legal resident aliens?) then you are welcome to do so – free speech and all that. You’ll have to change at least two federal laws to do so. However, we must ask that in doing so, it is incumbent that you distinguish what you want to be from what actually is.

  122. 122.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 2:01 pm

    Can we have some bi-partisan agreement that *Darrell* is one stupidass MF? Even by troll standards.

    Corrected.

  123. 123.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 2:01 pm

    I’m sorry if I take the word of a Federal administration over that of an online vendor I’ve never heard of.

    let’s examine the wording:

    2. This response is not a basis, in and of itself, to take any adverse action against the employee, such as laying off, suspending, firing, or discriminating against the employee.

    3. If you rely only on the verification information Social Security provides to justify adverse action against a worker, you may violate State or Federal law and be subject to legal consequences.

    I think it’s pretty clear that the SSA is saying that employers need to cross reference/double check that info. with another source before acting. It acts as a red flag to the employer to be investigated further.

    Again, a minor change in the law could easily make even that little hurdle into an employer obligation to perform “reasonable” checks via a database as whether or not the SS# is fraudulent. And by “hurdle”, it’s clear that the SSA is only saying to the employer that he needs to investigate further with more confirmation before acting.

  124. 124.

    jh

    December 27, 2006 at 2:02 pm

    I don’t like Darrell, but he has scored some points this round.

    Where is he half-right:

    1. Violation of immigration law may be a criminal (or civil matter depending on the case)

    2. Illegal immigration is a problem that could most effectively be dealt with at the employer level, (given the proper tools)

    Where he is wrong:

    1. Hazelton’s laws are most likely unconstitutional

    2. It is currently difficult and expensive to verify the identity of an undocumented person without cross checking multiple sources that are not readily availble to the public.

    By my math, that puts ole “D” in the red. Another typical day at BJ.

  125. 125.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 2:04 pm

    Where he is wrong:

    1. Hazelton’s laws are most likely unconstitutional

    On what basis do you make that claim?

  126. 126.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 2:05 pm

    jh, you missed:

    3. Falsely claiming SSNs can be sent to be checked to the SS admin to be verified for hiring purposes.

    4. Failing to read his own links.

  127. 127.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 2:06 pm

    2. It is currently difficult and expensive to verify the identity of an undocumented person without cross checking multiple sources that are not readily availble to the public.

    Expensive = free online SSA database to flag potential problem + $50 basic background check by a plethora of providers.

  128. 128.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 2:08 pm

    “Local govts are free to enact and enforce their own laws, even immigration laws, as long as the laws they enact are not in violation of the US constitution.. or in the case of Hazelton, PA, not in violation of US constitution or PA state law. Given that the immigration laws they passed are nearly identical to federal law, it unlikely that their immigration laws are unconstitutional.”

    Not true – Immigration law falls under the Commerce Clause. There’s reason why little more than birth or a couple years’ residence is needed to claim citizenship in a state so long as you are a U.S. citizen. That’s why states – like Pennsylvania, say – can’t enact their own guest worker or visa programs. It’s a matter of jurisdiction as outlined in the Constitution. Or is this distinction too hard for you?

  129. 129.

    Zifnab

    December 27, 2006 at 2:08 pm

    On what basis do you make that claim?

    On the basis of the judge that threw it out?

  130. 130.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 2:10 pm

    On the basis of the judge that threw it out?

    But he didn’t “throw it out” as you claim. He merely delayed action. Not that you have the integrity to acknowledge that distinction.

  131. 131.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 2:12 pm

    That’s why states – like Pennsylvania, say – can’t enact their own guest worker or visa programs. It’s a matter of jurisdiction as outlined in the Constitution. Or is this distinction too hard for you?

    Oh I make that distinction just fine. Except that you’re presenting a strawman, in that I never suggested or asserted that PA has authority to enact their own visa or guest worker programs, and your analogy is flawed as hell.

    I’ll ask again – on what basis is Hazelton’s new immigration law “unconstitutional”?

  132. 132.

    Zifnab

    December 27, 2006 at 2:13 pm

    One thing that continues to throw me:

    How is it that a judge can rule on an issue and people can still attempt to throw legal arguements at the case? Unless the assumption is that the DA of Allentown was criminally incompetent when handling the case, don’t you think the judge would have reviewed any of this that was relevant before making his decision? Unless the assumption is that the judge was just so hard-core pro-Immigration that he couldn’t rule in any other fashion, isn’t his ruling effectively “the law” for all extensive purposes forthwith? I just don’t understand how anyone can continue to argue the Allentown case on LEGAL grounds when it’s already been decided in court.

  133. 133.

    jh

    December 27, 2006 at 2:13 pm

    I think it’s pretty clear that the SSA is saying that employers need to cross reference/double check that info. with another source before acting. It acts as a red flag to the employer to be investigated further.

    Which is what TZ and I have been saying. Looking at SSN#s alone doesn’t get you very far and is illegal. Once you start getting to confirming actual identity, you need to have your checkbook ready.

    If laws like the ones Hazelton just tried to pass are allowed to become the basis for legal precedent, try figuring out the cost of millions of background investigations of tens of MILLIONS of people.

    A better system needs to be put into place. Unfortunately, the shenanigans of the current adminstration vis a vis civil liberties has made enacting something like a National ID Card a politically charged minefield rather than the no-brainer 8 years of sane governance would have made it.

    Taking it up a level, to the Feds holding employers liable would work. Unfortunately this is dead in the water until we can enact real campaign finance reform.

    So now we are left with hick towns making matters worse by fomenting racial profiling in housing and employment via shitty, redundant laws.

  134. 134.

    Zifnab

    December 27, 2006 at 2:14 pm

    He merely delayed action.

    Well, whatever then.

  135. 135.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 2:16 pm

    We’re discussing, to use your phrase, a “reasonable” check on the authenticity of SS#’s.

    Wrong again, Captain Zero.

    That’s what you are discussing. I have told you over and over, authenticity is not easily verifiable. Employers do not verify authenticity, are not required to do so, and have no tools to do so. They cannot and will not.

    All blabber to the contrary is just jackalope hot air.

    How long has your “crime to hire illegals” law been on the books? How many illegals are there? What’s the rate of increase? Why do you suppose the law has failed? Because everybody just forgot? BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE DONE YOU RIDICULOUS FOOL.

  136. 136.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 2:17 pm

    Looking at SSN#s alone doesn’t get you very far and is illegal

    Looking at SSN#’s alone is most definitely not illegal.

  137. 137.

    Tulkinghorn

    December 27, 2006 at 2:17 pm

    A defendent in civil cases can NEVER be incarcerted over a civil case. If you have a shred of honestly you would admit that you’re wrong. But you don’t, and you won’t. More evidence that not one of the leftists posting here today are arguing in good faith.

    Wrong.

    Ever spend a day in family court? I have seen people get 30 days incarceration for civil contempt over failure to pay child support. Some of them have been my clients! Maybe you want to tell them they were just imagining it.

  138. 138.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 2:18 pm

    “He merely delayed action.”

    That’s true. When it comes to semantic parsing, Darrell is a past-master and we shouldn’t give him more ammo. However, in substance, Zifnab is correct – this means that the judge found probable cause (not in the criminal sense) to place an injunction on the implementation of the municipal law because it conceivably either infringes on federal jurisdiction, constitutional rights, or violates existing federal and/or state law. And in the span of about four hours, we’ve pretty thoroughly demonstrated how it does so.

  139. 139.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 2:18 pm

    Expensive = free online SSA database to flag potential problem

    Which is of course *illegal* to do so. But then Darrell has already demonstrated he holds the law in contempt when it doesn’t do what he wants.

  140. 140.

    jh

    December 27, 2006 at 2:19 pm

    On what basis do you make that claim?

    From the article:

    Furthermore, [judge] Munley wrote, the plaintiffs have a “reasonable probability” of getting the laws declared unconstitutional.

  141. 141.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 2:22 pm

    A better system needs to be put into place. Unfortunately, the shenanigans of the current adminstration vis a vis civil liberties has made enacting something like a National ID Card a politically charged minefield rather than the no-brainer 8 years of sane governance would have made it.

    The point I am making is that reasonable checks can be required right now with the current system and current technology WITHOUT a national ID card.

    I believe you and others here are throwing out the national ID card as a red herring to try and delay any enforcement on employers at all.

    If that’s not what you’re doing, then explain why we shouldn’t start with reasonable measures which are ALREADY available and easy to access (SSN databases with name and age), and then discuss later more comprehensive enforcement measures?

  142. 142.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 2:22 pm

    Looking at SSN#’s alone is most definitely not illegal

    Using the SS admin database to check for purposes of hiring *is*.

  143. 143.

    Tulkinghorn

    December 27, 2006 at 2:24 pm

    Local govts are free to enact and enforce their own laws, even immigration laws, as long as the laws they enact are not in violation of the US constitution.. or in the case of Hazelton, PA, not in violation of US constitution or PA state law. Given that the immigration laws they passed are nearly identical to federal law, it unlikely that their immigration laws are unconstitutional.

    You have no idea what you are talking about.

  144. 144.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 2:26 pm

    Furthermore, [judge] Munley wrote, the plaintiffs have a “reasonable probability” of getting the laws declared unconstitutional.

    And Hazelton feels confident they won’t. What I’d like to hear, is the argument/basis for which allegations of “unconstitutionality” have been made. Absent of these arguments, I think it’s reasonable to assume that an activist judge is trying to stop the enaction of a perfectly legal law because he personally opposes it.

    In order to be unconstitutional, it would have to be forbid in the US constitution. Where is enforcement of immigration by local authorities forbidden in our constitution?

    And why aren’t you ‘independent thinkers’ asking these same questions?

  145. 145.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 2:29 pm

    why we shouldn’t start with reasonable measures which are ALREADY available and easy to access (SSN databases with name and age)

    Because it’s been pointed out again and again that it is *I-L-L-E-G-A-L* to check the SSN with the SS admin for hiring purposes. And given the surge in identity theft, the last thing any sane person wants is to make their job easier by making SSNs easier to access.

  146. 146.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 2:30 pm

    You have no idea what you are talking about.

    Enlighten us then dumbass. And try reading this before you do so in order to avoid further humiliation

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

  147. 147.

    Zifnab

    December 27, 2006 at 2:31 pm

    And Hazelton feels confident they won’t. What I’d like to hear, is the argument/basis for which allegations of “unconstitutionality” have been made. Absent of these arguments, I think it’s reasonable to assume that an activist judge is trying to stop the enaction of a perfectly legal law because he personally opposes it.

    And of course, here we get back to the classic GOP talking points. If the judge disagrees with me, it clearly must be because of politics. Try that one next time you get a speeding ticket, Darrell. “But your honor, you’re not punishing me for breaking the established speed limit, you’re punishing me because you are an activist judge that hates motorists.”

  148. 148.

    Tulkinghorn

    December 27, 2006 at 2:33 pm

    In order to be unconstitutional, it would have to be forbid in the US constitution. Where is enforcement of immigration by local authorities forbidden in our constitution?

    As I said above, google “plenary power immigration” on Google. better yet, just go here:
    http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/msktestimony1001.html

    These are CONSERVATIVE arguments, about SETTLED law. Leftists don’t like the fact that Congress has plenary power, Leftists want immigrants facing deportation to have the rights that the constitution gives criminal defendants, instead of the half-assed rights that the civil system gives them in an administrative law system.

    OK, make them all criminals. Let every person facing deportation have the same rights to appeal that someone on death row has. Let every deportation case drag on for 15 years. Lefty lawyers like me would make a mint! Make my day, you ignorant schmuck.

  149. 149.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 2:34 pm

    I think it’s reasonable to assume that an activist judge is trying to stop the enaction of a perfectly legal law because he personally opposes it.

    Shorter Darrell: If I don’t like him following the law, he’s an activist.

    It’s not that hard, the Hazelton law is unconstitutional because it is attempting to go over both federal & state laws.

  150. 150.

    The Other Andrew

    December 27, 2006 at 2:34 pm

    Isn’t all this Social Security stuff beside the point? I doubt it’ll take long for Bush and our new Congress to agree on some sort of “amnesty” bill, though I’m sure we’ll have a filibuster or the like to keep us temporarily entertained.

    I wonder what the Vegas odds are on Lou Dobbs having a heart attack after that happens…

  151. 151.

    jh

    December 27, 2006 at 2:34 pm

    i I believe you and others here are throwing out the national ID card as a red herring to try and delay any enforcement on employers at all.

    I’m not against enforcing immigration law on employers. Not at all.

    What I am against is putting employers in a position where it is easier to racially profile than it is to be certain that they are following the law. Right NOW it is illegal to use SS#s for verifying information on the W-2s of current employees. That’s what the database is for. Period. Using it on potential employees or to take action against existing employees is not allowed.

    Step 1 is to give government and employers an accurate way to establish identity and citizenship. That will likely involve some kind of ID card; tested against proof of citizenship and that uses biometric data, to be implemented. That is going to cost a shitload of money.

    Once that happens, we can start holding employers feet to the fire.

    This doesn’t mean however, that we immediately start throwing people out of the country, breaking up families, and forcing tens of millions of people further underground.

    That would be a huge mistake.

  152. 152.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 2:35 pm

    And of course, here we get back to the classic GOP talking points. If the judge disagrees with me, it clearly must be because of politics.

    First, you should acknowledge that the judge did not “throw out” the case as you alleged upthread. Second, if the judge disagrees, but OFFERS NO EXPLANATION, then yes, it’s reasonable to suggest that he’s letting political bias get in the way of carrying out the law.

    What then, is the argument/basis for these allegations of ‘unconstitutionality’ of Hazelton’s legislation? You all appear to be incapable of explaining that.

  153. 153.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 2:37 pm

    That would be a huge mistake.

    jh, you’re arguing with a person who still thinks the Iraq war was a good idea. Darrells do not recognize their mistakes, they just go and make new ones.

  154. 154.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 2:37 pm

    “Except that you’re presenting a strawman, in that I never suggested or asserted that PA has authority to enact their own visa or guest worker programs, and your analogy is flawed as hell.”

    Actually, you’re presenting the strawman, in that I never said you said that; I wasn’t arguing against some made-up position I attributed to you or your allies (that’s a strawman; you really are some college freshman, aren’t you?). Mine was an example of how states and municipalities can’t enact laws for something that falls within federal jurisdiction. If my excluding words like “for example” and “such as” for the sake of readability confused you, I’m so very sorry. I don’t mean to tax your brain any further than it already is just by carrying out your autonomic functions.

    “I’ll ask again – on what basis is Hazelton’s new immigration law “unconstitutional”?”

    Well, as we’ve already indicated, there’s a couple of possibilities:

    1) It violates federal jurisdiction, as immigration law falls under federal purview via the Commerce Clause and there is an existing federal law (which you so kindly linked to) that addresses the same issue.

    2) It singles out a certain class of unindicted people for punishment without due process, violating Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

  155. 155.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 2:38 pm

    Second, if the judge disagrees, but OFFERS NO EXPLANATION, then yes, it’s reasonable to suggest that he’s letting political bias get in the way of carrying out the law.

    Shorter Darrell: I must have the obvious explained to me again and again and I still will not get it.

  156. 156.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 2:42 pm

    You know you’re a weak-minded idiot if you constantly post “Shorter ….”

  157. 157.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 2:44 pm

    Shorter Darrell: Poopyhead!

  158. 158.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 2:51 pm

    Well, as we’ve already indicated, there’s a couple of possibilities:

    1) It violates federal jurisdiction, as immigration law falls under federal purview via the Commerce Clause and there is an existing federal law (which you so kindly linked to) that addresses the same issue.

    Ok, that makes a little sense at least. But even if immigration law is interpreted to fall entirely under the federal purview, where in the constitution does it prevent local authorities from taking the initiative to help the feds enforce law. Local law enforcement works with the FBI ALL THE TIME in cracking down on crime which falls under federal jurisdiction.

    Why then, is it suddenly ‘unconstitional’ for local authorities to enforce laws falling under federal jurisdiction just because that law involves immigration?

  159. 159.

    Zifnab

    December 27, 2006 at 2:51 pm

    You know you’re a weak-minded idiot if you constantly post “Shorter ….”

    Shorter Darrell: …
    Actually, that’s pretty short as it stands. I’m not sure I could compress it if I tried.

    If you really want to know the judge’s reason for blocking the law, perhaps you should research the answer yourself. I’m vaguely confident that the judge issued a written ruling explaining his conclusions and didn’t just bang the gavel after a coin flip.

  160. 160.

    Zifnab

    December 27, 2006 at 2:54 pm

    But even if immigration law is interpreted to fall entirely under the federal purview, where in the constitution does it prevent local authorities from taking the initiative to help the feds enforce law.

    You’re right. However, this wasn’t assistance by local law enforcement. It was a brand new law that existed entirely at the municipal level. So, I’m confident the city could request a federal INS agent to come down and help with oversight of the enforcement of the existing legislation. Perhaps that would be a more effective plan of attack for Allentown.

  161. 161.

    Pooh

    December 27, 2006 at 2:54 pm

    because assault requires me to have touched you

    Proof that Darrell knows not of what he speaks: the above is incorrect, and if he knew a damn thing about, well, anything, he would have jumped on it to assail the lying leftist liberalolattenamblafascitas. Battery requires offensive physical touching. Assault requires being placed in a state of reasonable apprehension of physical harm. (Hence, e.g., “assault by pointing.”) ‘Reasonable’ being a question of fact, and random anonymous internet postings do not rise to that level in almost all cases (the exceptions being what some might call ‘stalking’ which is fairly precisely defined by statute in the jurisdictions I’m familiar with)

  162. 162.

    Francis

    December 27, 2006 at 2:55 pm

    Any halfwit attorney can tell everyone here that immigration law is and always has been the EXCLUSIVE province of federal law.

    since i’m having troubles linking, anyone who wants to read more should go to Findlaw — U.S. Constitution — Article I — Annotations on Naturalization.

    Most federal judges are not morons. The ability of local jurisdictions to do anything in the sphere of immigration is extremely limited.

  163. 163.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    However, this wasn’t assistance by local law enforcement. It was a brand new law that existed entirely at the municipal level

    What’s the distinction in this case? They’re not claiming authority to deport illegal aliens

  164. 164.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 2:57 pm

    Why then, is it suddenly ‘unconstitional’ for local authorities to enforce laws falling under federal jurisdiction just because that law involves immigration?

    It’s unconstitutional to create a new municipal law that attempts to take powers reserved for the federal government.

    We really should charge Darrell for these basic government lessons.

  165. 165.

    Francis

    December 27, 2006 at 2:59 pm

    ps: the comment made above that the power to regulate immigration comes from the Commerce Clause is incorrect. While the power does come from Art. I, Section 8, the relevant language is “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, not “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States”

  166. 166.

    Pooh

    December 27, 2006 at 3:01 pm

    Darrell, if we’re going to teach you the first week or so of Con Law and/or Procedure 101, I think you have to pony up the tuition first.

  167. 167.

    Tulkinghorn

    December 27, 2006 at 3:03 pm

    Any halfwit attorney can tell everyone here that immigration law is and always has been the EXCLUSIVE province of federal law.

    Speaking as a halfwit attorney, I have been repeating that point for hours, and to no effect. Darrell will just came back after a few minutes, declare that I am a liar, and start all over again.

  168. 168.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 3:03 pm

    Francis Says:

    Any halfwit attorney can tell everyone here that immigration law is and always has been the EXCLUSIVE province of federal law.

    From the “halfwits” in the Clinton Justice Dept.

    It is well-settled that state law enforcement officers are permitted to enforce federal statutes where such enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963); Florida Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963). This general principle extends to state enforcement of the Immigration and Naturalization Act as well. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983), for example, the Ninth Circuit held that “federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the [Immigration and Naturalization] Act.” Id. at 475.

    I hope everyone is aware that local law enforcement officials are sworn to uphold the law, including federal law.

  169. 169.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 3:04 pm

    “Local law enforcement works with the FBI ALL THE TIME in cracking down on crime which falls under federal jurisdiction.”

    Okay, substantive questions. Me likey.

    Working with isn’t what we’re talking about here. Asserting jurisdiction is. I’m not a lawyer, so if I bungle this a little, please bear with me (and any real lawyers feel free to hop in):

    Let’s say Joe Q. Dumbass kidnaps Mary L. Hottentot in South Carolina and drags her to Florida, then kills her and dumps her body in Talahassee. The FBI, working the kidnapping across state lines case (a federal crime) work with the Talahassee PD (working the murder case) to catch Joe. However, since Florida no longer has the death penalty, the Feds assert their jurisdiction with the kidnapping/murder because it crossed state lines (Commerce Clause, I believe, though it might be simpler than that) so they can fry his ass. Talahassee’s DA may get all worked up because the ultimate crime occurred in her jurisdiction, but the Federal jurisdiction takes precedence under established Constitutional law.

    “Why then, is it suddenly ‘unconstitional’ for local authorities to enforce laws falling under federal jurisdiction just because that law involves immigration?”

    Again, we’re not talking about enforcement of existing federal law, nor a municipal statement of commitment to enforcing it (such as creating a specific enforcement unit within the city government structure), but rather the creation of an additional portion of the municipal code and thus an assertion of jurisdiction.

  170. 170.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 3:05 pm

    Pooh Says:

    Darrell, if we’re going to teach you the first week or so of Con Law and/or Procedure 101, I think you have to pony up the tuition first.

    Ah yes, Pooh swoops in with another zero-substance post with nothing but snark… how typical.

  171. 171.

    Pooh

    December 27, 2006 at 3:07 pm

    ps: the comment made above that the power to regulate immigration comes from the Commerce Clause is incorrect. While the power does come from Art. I, Section 8, the relevant language is “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, not “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States”

    However, commerce clause cases might be instructive – specifically those dealing with state attempts to regulate interstate highways.

  172. 172.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 3:09 pm

    Thanks for the clarification, Francis. Like I said, I’m no lawyer.

  173. 173.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 3:09 pm

    Hello, Francis! We await your ever so enlighted response

  174. 174.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 3:10 pm

    I hope everyone is aware that local law enforcement officials are sworn to uphold the law, including federal law.

    Shorter Darrell: Look, a red herring!

  175. 175.

    Tulkinghorn

    December 27, 2006 at 3:11 pm

    Pooh is right Darrell. The law is not what you think it is, or would like it to be. There are facts, just like in engineering of medicine. The exclusive power of the federal govt. to regulate immigration is a fact. Asserting otherwise fails you out of law school, loses your cases, gets you a nice malpractice judgment.

  176. 176.

    Zifnab

    December 27, 2006 at 3:11 pm

    What’s the distinction in this case? They’re not claiming authority to deport illegal aliens

    God damnit Darrell, I’m tired of running in circles with you. Just look upthread and I promise I’ve already posted at least one answer to that question.

  177. 177.

    Pooh

    December 27, 2006 at 3:11 pm

    Why then, is it suddenly ‘unconstitional’ for local authorities to enforce laws falling under federal jurisdiction just because that law involves immigration?

    Look up concurrent vs. exclusive jurisdiction. Drug laws, e.g., fall under concurrent jurisdiction. Immigration law (like some portions of admiralty law, for another example) is exclusively federal jurisdiction. It’s not the enforcement that is the issue here, it is the lawmaking in a field exclusively the province of the federal government.

    Of course, in Darrell world, maybe Pennsylvania can negotiate a separate ABM treaty with Russia…

  178. 178.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 3:12 pm

    There are facts, just like in engineering of medicine. The exclusive power of the federal govt. to regulate immigration is a fact.

    Again, for the slow learners:

    It is well-settled that state law enforcement officers are permitted to enforce federal statutes where such enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963); Florida Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963). This general principle extends to state enforcement of the Immigration and Naturalization Act as well. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983), for example, the Ninth Circuit held that “federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the [Immigration and Naturalization] Act.” Id. at 475.

  179. 179.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 3:14 pm

    Again, for the slow learners:

    Shorter Darrell: Look at my red herring, damnit!

  180. 180.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 3:14 pm

    Darrell:

    “It is well-settled that state law enforcement officers are permitted to enforce federal statutes where such enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests.”

    I think you’re failing to make a distinction between enforcement and legislating. For example, a sheriff’s deputy in Arizona can pull over a speeding truck, find it packed with undocumented individuals, and arrest the driver for violating federal immigration laws. No one is protesting that. However, the state or county cannot assert independent jurisdiction over immigration. What it can do is step up existing enforcement measures or request assistance from federal agencies.

    For further example, murder is illegal in states. Murder is also illegal under federal law, where it pertains to federal jurisdiction – such as on federal property like military bases, or in the course of a crime in which the federal government has jurisdiction such as drug or human trafficking across state or national borders.

  181. 181.

    Tulkinghorn

    December 27, 2006 at 3:17 pm

    It is well-settled that state law enforcement officers are permitted to enforce federal statutes where such enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests

    Thank you for making my point for me.

    There can be no consistent, workable national immigration and naturalization system without exclusive federal jurisdiction. I can not think of a clearer case where the “enforcement activities” would “impair federal regulatory interests.”

    Do you even realize that I am making the conservative argument here, and that you are making the leftist argument?

  182. 182.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 3:19 pm

    Do you even realize that I am making the conservative argument here, and that you are making the leftist nutcase argument?

    Corrected.

  183. 183.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 3:19 pm

    I think you’re failing to make a distinction between enforcement and legislating

    I think it’s clear that Hazelton has the authority to do both

    for example, the Ninth Circuit held that “federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the [Immigration and Naturalization] Act.” Id. at 475.

    Unless the fining of local employers who hire illegal aliens is forbidden in the constitution or ‘impairs’ federal interests, it seems pretty clear that Hazelton has the authority to enact and enforce their own laws too.. in addition to helping enforce existing federal law involving immigration.

  184. 184.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 3:21 pm

    There can be no consistent, workable national immigration and naturalization system without exclusive federal jurisdiction. I can not think of a clearer case where the “enforcement activities” would “impair federal regulatory interests.”

    It’s not at all “clear” how this example in any way demonstrates how Hazelton’s enforcement activities would ‘impair’ federal interests.

    Please explain why this is so “clear”?

  185. 185.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 3:24 pm

    I think it’s clear that Hazelton has the authority to do both

    Shorter Darrell: I have no idea what the hell I’m talking about.

    Unless the fining of local employers who hire illegal aliens is forbidden in the constitution or ‘impairs’ federal interests,

    Shorter Darrell II: I must try to bullshit my way out of the corner I’m in.

  186. 186.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 3:25 pm

    Do you even realize that I am making the conservative argument here, and that you are making the leftist argument?

    Do you realize that you are too stupid to realize that you’re doing the exact opposite? Conservative arguments champion state and local power to take of their own problems and lives, as opposed to relying on the federal government (your position).

    I’m sure you think of yourself as intelligent.. sorry to break the bad news to you.

  187. 187.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 3:25 pm

    Please explain why this is so “clear”?

    Shorter Darrell: Look! An obvious distraction!

  188. 188.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 3:27 pm

    However, the state or county cannot assert independent jurisdiction over immigration.

    But their laws are not in conflict with federal laws that I can see.

  189. 189.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 3:28 pm

    Hi Darrell,

    I have a reasonable argument for why the judge said the ordinance’s could possibly unconstitutional. One of the ordinances required a permit for renter’s as a class to obtain permits before entering into a contract for housing. This sounds like it would be in direct conflict with the Due Process clause’s liberty of contract.

    Also, if the judge found the renters to be a class of people, it could run afoul of the Equal Protection clause as the same application for permit is not required for those who lease or purchase property.

    Of course, I don’t know what the ACLU actually argued. However, it seems to me that before you condemn the ACLU in this case, perhaps you should educate yourself of their arguments instead of just guessing. I’m sure the ACLU filed briefs wherein they explained how they think the ordinance’s violate the constitution.

    Cheers.

  190. 190.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 3:28 pm

    “I think it’s clear that Hazelton has the authority to do both…”

    Then I really don’t know how to help you. Several lawyers here have repeatedly given you legal reasoning for it. You keep citing examples that contain the word “enforcement” and absolutely nothing about “legislating.”

    “Unless the fining of local employers who hire illegal aliens is forbidden in the constitution or ‘impairs’ federal interests, it seems pretty clear that Hazelton has the authority to enact and enforce their own laws too.. in addition to helping enforce existing federal law involving immigration.”

    Now, you’ve already linked to the federal law in question. I don’t know how to put it any clearer than you already indicated. Seriously. At this point, you’re just being willfully obstinate.

    One thing I hadn’t considered until just now was the “renter’s permit” Hazelton was going to enact. That doesn’t seem right.

    “It’s not at all “clear” how this example in any way demonstrates how Hazelton’s enforcement activities would ‘impair’ federal interests.”

    Seriously. Dude. Come on.

  191. 191.

    Tulkinghorn

    December 27, 2006 at 3:28 pm

    Please explain why this is so “clear”?

    For example, if each state comes up with different systems for regulating immigration, then illegal immigrants will flock to the one state that will be the most lax, and then relocate.

    Due to the externalities upon other states, you need to have an exclusively national system. Please check Harasiades, quoted in pertinent part above. Harasiades was a communist, and if, say, Michigan wanted to let people advocating the violent overthrow of the government, why should Indiana have to have its safety compromised?

  192. 192.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 3:32 pm

    Darrell,

    Here is a link so you can avail yourself of the ACLU’s actual arguments… that way you can argue against *them* instead of what you might think their arguments are.

    http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/26465prs20060815.html

    Cheers.

  193. 193.

    Francis

    December 27, 2006 at 3:32 pm

    I think I’m being trolled here, but once more for the morons:

    ENACTMENT of State Laws and Municipal Ordinances in the Sphere of Immigration –> UNCONSTITUTIONAL, per Art. I, Sec. 8, Naturalization Clause, and over 200 years of consistent case law.

    ENFORCEMENT of federal laws by state and local law enforcement officials –> CONSTITUTIONAL, but complicated.

    THEREFORE, Hazelton’s ENACTMENT of a local ordinance that on its face appears to operate in the sphere of powers reserved EXCLUSIVELY to the federal government was found by the judge, on a summary review, to be more likely than not to be unconstitutional.

    Now, courts will allow the federal government, states and localities to continue to enforce laws that are being challenged in court unless the plaintiffs (persons challenging the law) request a preliminary injunction. A court will issue a preliminary injunction, and prevent a government from enforcing the challenged law, when the plaintiffs demonstrate that they have a better than 50-50 chance of winning the lawsuit (more or less). Because the plaintiffs had a very easy case to establish that they are likely to win outright, the court had little difficulty in issuing the preliminary injunction.

  194. 194.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 3:34 pm

    Tulkinghorn: “Do you even realize that I am making the conservative argument here, and that you are making the leftist argument?”

    Darrell: “Do you realize that you are too stupid to realize that you’re doing the exact opposite? Conservative arguments champion state and local power to take of their own problems and lives, as opposed to relying on the federal government (your position).”

    Not necessarily. I’m pretty sure a small-government conservative doesn’t make the distinction between federal and municipal regulation that you’re making. In this case, you are advocating increased municipal regulation (renter’s permits, fines, pulling of business licenses, etc.) in order to deal with illegal immigration. That’s fairly unconservative. One might even call it liberal (in the governance sense).

    “But their laws are not in conflict with federal laws that I can see.”

    From Francis: “While the power does come from Art. I, Section 8, the relevant language is ‘To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization’…”

  195. 195.

    Tulkinghorn

    December 27, 2006 at 3:35 pm

    Do you realize that you are too stupid to realize that you’re doing the exact opposite? Conservative arguments champion state and local power to take of their own problems and lives, as opposed to relying on the federal government (your position).

    I’m sure you think of yourself as intelligent.. sorry to break the bad news to you.

    Darrell: I challenge you to find one Republican of national stature in the last 50 years who has advocated (a)moving immigration out of the realm of civil law and into the realm of criminal law; and/or (b)changing the “settled law” that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over immigration and naturalization law.

    There may be such a republican, but I have never heard of it.

    This stuff may excite the reactionary masses, but it just does not work, and you ought to know better.

  196. 196.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 3:35 pm

    Darrell,

    Another thing of interest that I learned by actually reading something of the ACLU’s arguments:

    Perales cited a report published by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan agency that writes reports for lawmakers, which confirmed that federal law likely precludes Hazleton from enforcing the ordinance.

    That is interesting don’t you think?

  197. 197.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 3:37 pm

    Darrell,

    Ahh yes, here is the actual complaint that the ACLU filed in the case for your benefit:

    http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file582_26463.pdf

    Cheers.

  198. 198.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 3:38 pm

    Myrtle, no fair using actual evidence. Facts have a well known liberal bias.

  199. 199.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 3:39 pm

    ENFORCEMENT of federal laws by state and local law enforcement officials—> CONSTITUTIONAL, but complicated.

    Thank you for agreeing with me Francis.

  200. 200.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 3:44 pm

    Darrell,

    Ahh yes, here is the actual complaint that the ACLU filed in the case for your benefit:

    Thank you. It appears that the language of Hazelton’s ordinance may (or may not?) have to be reworded.. I believe a few minor changes wouldn’t change the crux of their ordinance, which empowers them to crack down on employers hiring illegal aliens. Again,

    for example, the Ninth Circuit held that “federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the [Immigration and Naturalization] Act.” Id. at 475.

  201. 201.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 3:45 pm

    “Thank you for agreeing with me Francis.”

    For the love of poop.

    Darrell, this ENTIRE TIME, you’ve been advocating that Hazelton’s actions – legislating a new portion of its municipal code – were constitutionally valid. Are you NOW stating that you were merely claiming (in the bizarrest form possible) that passing a municipal law was merely an act of enforcement?! Even the Texans don’t move the goalposts when they keep getting scored on. And you’ve been scored on more times than a drunk hooker with quadriplegia. Have some class, admit where you were wrong (as we did), and move on.

  202. 202.

    Francis

    December 27, 2006 at 3:47 pm

    Don’t flatter yourself.

    This:

    I think you’re failing to make a distinction between enforcement and legislating

    I think it’s clear that Hazelton has the authority to do both

    pretty much shows you’re either illiterate or a troll.

  203. 203.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 3:48 pm

    Darrell, this ENTIRE TIME, you’ve been advocating that Hazelton’s actions – legislating a new portion of its municipal code – were constitutionally valid

    I have advocated that a local city, county or state has the right to pass and enforce immigration laws which do not conflict with federal law. The wording of Hazelton’s ordinace may or may not have gone over that line. My point still stands. Please read and comment on this ruling which you and others here have avoided responding to

    the Ninth Circuit held that “federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the [Immigration and Naturalization] Act.” Id. at 475.

  204. 204.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 3:49 pm

    Further, that ruling from the Ninth Circuit you keep citing has NO BEARING on what you’ve been arguing, because it is related SOLELY to enforcement, not passing new laws that would THEN be enforced. So stop trotting it out – it doesn’t help you.

  205. 205.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 3:50 pm

    Darrell,

    So you don’t have to work to hard, I’m going to type up the ACLU’s actual arguments for why these ordinances are unconstitutional. Here you go:

    The Ordinance unlawfully infringes on the Federal government’s authority over immigration, violating the Supremecy Clause, in two ways. The Ordinance defines – in a manner inconsistent with Federal law – who is a lawful immigrant. Some people lawfully in this country under Federal law, including some immigrants whose status may be unresolved, are deemed to be “illegal aliens” in Hazelton. Second, the Ordinance compels municipal officials and thrusts on private landlords, employers and merchants the responsibility to determine who is lawfully present in the United States, a very complex and difficult task properly and solely reserved to the Federal government.

    The Ordinance violates the due process rights of landlords, employers and business owners by placing them in the intractable position of having, on the one hand, to demand proof of status from every suspected “illegal alien” to avoid the risk of incurring fines and losing municipal operating permits and licenses or, on the other hand, denying service to lawful residents as a precaution against violating the Ordinance, thereby risking liability for violating Federal and state anti-descrimination laws. The Ordinance is vague and overbroad, making compliance therewith nearly impossible.

    The Ordinance constitutes invidious discrimination based on alienage and violates the equal protection rights of Hazleton residents by imposing on them the unique burden of having to produce proof of status as a condition precedent to obtaining housing, jobs, and necessary goods and services. The Ordinance violates the due process rights of Plaintiffs by failing to afford any process for determining “illegal alien” status or challenging any such determination. The Ordinance impinges upon the First Amendment free speech rights of limited English proficiency residents by requiring that all written municipal government communications be in English. The Ordiance futher violates the Pennsylvania Constitution and various Federal laws.

    That is the ACLU’s rationale from their own brief. Read the rest to inform yourself of their arguments.

    Cheers.

  206. 206.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 3:52 pm

    Francis, will you please respond to this:

    the Ninth Circuit held that “federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the [Immigration and Naturalization] Act.” Id. at 475

    And will you respond to whether or not you agree that local law enforcement authorities are sworn to uphold the law, including federal law?

  207. 207.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 3:52 pm

    “I have advocated that a local city, county or state has the right to pass and enforce immigration laws which do not conflict with federal law.”

    Then you’re advocating an opinion in direct contradiction to over 200 years of legal precedent! The price is wrong, Bob.

    “Please read and comment on this ruling which you and others here have avoided responding to…”

    ENFORCEMENT, Darrell. ENFORCEMENT ENFORCEMENT ENFORCEMENT.

    Enforce = v. to actively compel adherence to EXISTING law.

    You’re making my eyes bleed. I’m going to lunch.

  208. 208.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 3:55 pm

    By that count it seems the Ordinances violate – according to the ACLU, the Congressional Research Service and apparently the Judge thinks they have merit – the Constitution in for areas:

    1. The Supremecy Clause
    2. The Due Process Clause
    3. The Equal Protection Clause
    4. The First Amendment

    Further they say that the people harmed are employers, landlords, lawful American citizens denied housing, employment, goods and services.

    Disagree or not, but those are the arguments. Read the rest…

  209. 209.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 3:56 pm

    Myrtle, as I have explained repeatedly, I believe some minor rewording in Hazelton’s ordinance would close the book on any valid legal challenges. In fact, they may prevail even without making such challenge. For example, the objection over their definition of who is a lawful immigrant

    The Ordinance defines – in a manner inconsistent with Federal law – who is a lawful immigrant. Some people lawfully in this country under Federal law, including some immigrants whose status may be unresolved, are deemed to be “illegal aliens” in Hazelton.

    I don’t think that would substantively change the ordinance if they changed their definition of ‘illegal alien’ to be consistent with federal definitions. I think they could easily make that change and then legally enforce the hell out of their ordinance.

    You act as if you have some “solid” point which refutes the substance of my arguments.

  210. 210.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 3:59 pm

    Darrell, I think the crux of the argument you are having with everyone else… you see these Ordinances as merely an attempt at enforcement – somehow just emphasizing or restating – of existing federal law.

    Everyone else seems to be saying that these Ordinances are not simply a restating of existing federal law, but go far beyond what the Federal government requires. I think that is fair.

    Consider, currently existing federal law does not require people to get a permit to rent housing. So it can not be argued that this Ordinance is merely trying to enforce something that exists Federally… it does not. See?

    But, if you want to argue about this then why not try and actually argue against the ACLU’s points…. not something else.

  211. 211.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 3:59 pm

    The Ordinance constitutes invidious discrimination based on alienage and violates the equal protection rights of Hazleton residents by imposing on them the unique burden of having to produce proof of status as a condition precedent to obtaining housing, jobs, and necessary goods and services

    I love this one. The ACLU, in all their radicalism, is seriously alleging that it’s a violation of the equal protection clause to require proof of status.

  212. 212.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 4:02 pm

    Everyone else seems to be saying that these Ordinances are not simply a restating of existing federal law, but go far beyond what the Federal government requires

    No Myrtle, that is not what “everyone” or anyone on this thread has said. What they are saying and have said, is that local govts have no right to enforce immigration law at all.

    I believe that characterization shows that you’re not arguing in good faith.

  213. 213.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 4:02 pm

    Darrell says: You act as if you have some “solid” point which refutes the substance of my arguments.

    Shorter Darrell: You can take your facts and go to Hell! You go to Hell and you die!!

  214. 214.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 4:04 pm

    Darrell, you have only addressed one of the two ways in which the ACLU claims the Ordinances violate the Supremecy Clause of the constitution. Note that the ACLU’s petition lists multiple violations of many other parts of the constitution.

    In other words, you’ve yet to tell us what you think of the bulk of the ACLU’s arguments in any substantive way. That’s fine. It is up to you.

  215. 215.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 4:04 pm

    Consider, currently existing federal law does not require people to get a permit to rent housing. So it can not be argued that this Ordinance is merely trying to enforce something that exists Federally… it does not. See?

    If the federal govt does not forbid requiring proof of legal status in order to obtain housing, Hazelton is within their rights to do so.

    What’s more, even if they have to drop the landlord requirements, they are fully within their rights to go after employers of illegal aliens based on the court rulings and Justice Dept. findings that I have cited.

  216. 216.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 4:05 pm

    The ACLU, in all their radicalism, is seriously alleging that it’s a violation of the equal protection clause to require proof of status.

    Re-factored Darrell: I can say anything, no matter how absurd or offensive or full of shit it may be, to anyone on this blog any time I want. I can even invent a legal basis for requiring people to do something called “prove status” before they can have a roof over their heads, food, medicine, or water to drink … and I can publish it on the internets for all to see and nothing will happen to me.

  217. 217.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 4:06 pm

    In other words, you’ve yet to tell us what you think of the bulk of the ACLU’s arguments in any substantive way

    Sure I have. Read above. What “major” point made by the ACLU do you feel I have not addressed? be specific and I’ll address it

  218. 218.

    Tulkinghorn

    December 27, 2006 at 4:07 pm

    And will you respond to whether or not you agree that local law enforcement authorities are sworn to uphold the law, including federal law?

    Not civil laws. Among the areas of federal civil law that local law enforcement are unable to enforce are the regulatory and statutory regimes of the:

    FAA
    BIA
    Military laws (eg rounding up awols)
    SEC
    FDIC
    FCC
    FTC
    Fish & Wildlife Service
    BLM
    FDA

    and, ICE.

  219. 219.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 4:08 pm

    Darrell,

    “What they are saying and have said, is that local govts have no right to enforce immigration law at all.”

    Ahem, I believe that if you read back up the thread you’ll find more than one post which beckoned you to stop conflating enacting new laws with local enforcement of existing federal law.

    “I believe that characterization shows that you’re not arguing in good faith.”

    You really feel this way after I took all that time to actually go to the ACLU’s website and type out for you what they were actually arguing so you wouldn’t look foolish arguing against dumb strawmen? I’m sooooo sorry you feel that way.

    Cheers.

  220. 220.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 4:10 pm

    If the federal govt does not forbid requiring proof of legal status in order to obtain housing, Hazelton is within their rights to do so.

    See, that’s just it. The ACLU is asserting that the Federal Government — rather the Constitution of this government — *does* forbid that very thing.

    I think you just misunderstand is all…

  221. 221.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 4:11 pm

    Among the areas of federal civil law that local law enforcement are unable to enforce are the regulatory and statutory regimes of the:

    FAA
    BIA
    Military laws (eg rounding up awols)
    SEC
    FDIC
    FCC
    FTC
    Fish & Wildlife Service
    BLM
    FDA

    and, ICE.

    That “point” of yours is directly refuted here:

    It is well-settled that state law enforcement officers are permitted to enforce federal statutes where such enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963); Florida Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963). This general principle extends to state enforcement of the Immigration and Naturalization Act as well. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983), for example, the Ninth Circuit held that “federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the [Immigration and Naturalization] Act.” Id. at 475.

  222. 222.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 4:14 pm

    The ACLU is asserting that the Federal Government—rather the Constitution of this government—does forbid that very thing.

    I believe the ACLU’s equal protection clause argument is laughable. I think other of their arguments have some merit, but can be easily dealt with in minor modifications to the wording in Hazleton’s ordinance

  223. 223.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 4:14 pm

    Darrell said,

    What “major” point made by the ACLU do you feel I have not addressed? be specific and I’ll address it

    How about this one?

    The Ordinance violates the due process rights of Plaintiffs by failing to afford any process for determining “illegal alien” status or challenging any such determination.

    Here the ACLU is arguing that its client – a lawful US citizen – has no recourse to challenge a landlord who denies her housing citing this ordinance. The ordinance fails to provide any kind of lawful regime where she could challenge a false designation as ‘illegal’. What do you think of that?

    Cheers.

  224. 224.

    Tulkinghorn

    December 27, 2006 at 4:15 pm

    Asked and answered, Darrell. See infra.

  225. 225.

    Francis

    December 27, 2006 at 4:16 pm

    Local enforcement of federal law has nothing, nada, zip, zero, zilch with the constitutionality of Hazelton’s ordinances.

    But, for those who are interested in learning whether state and local police may seize / arrest / detain illegal aliens, simply by virtue of them being illegal, the short answer is that the matter is very complicated.

    Longer answers: Deportation is a civil process, not a criminal process. State and local cops do not have authority under state law to arrest people who are in violation of civil laws. (Do you really want Target to be able to have you arrested because you’re late on your payments? Also, see the 4th Amendment.) So, in order for state and local officials to enforce immigration laws, they have to be deputized as federal marshals, or the seizure of the alien has to be for the commission of a federal felony.

    So, arrest of illegal alien by state/local official for purpose of deportation — Unconstitional. Arrest of illegal alien for commission of a federal felony — Constitutional.

    I’m not an immigration lawyer, but I believe it’s a felony for an illegal alien to re-enter the US after deportation. But it’s not a felony simply to enter illegally. That only subjects you to deportation which, as noted above, is only a civil matter.

  226. 226.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 4:19 pm

    You really feel this way after I took all that time to actually go to the ACLU’s website and type out for you what they were actually arguing

    More dishonesty. I wasn’t responding to the ACLU’s argument with that remark, I was responding to your characterization of what “everyone” here was arguing.

    What has been argued by my detractors has morphed, after their original arguments were crushed. First, it was argued by TimF, TZ and others that it wasn’t “practical” to require employers to check status. When I linked to several websites with online SSN# verificatin databases, that argument then morphed into Hazelton’s laws were “unconstutional” because only the federal govt. can enforce immigration laws. That argument has been crushed with the DOJ article citing multiple court rulings which make clear that it’s “well-settled that state law enforcement officers are permitted to enforce federal statutes where such enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests”

    Now we’re down to parsing words on the ACLU argument which I have responded to. You guys are in a corner, but too dishonest to admit it.

  227. 227.

    Tulkinghorn

    December 27, 2006 at 4:20 pm

    And Darrell, not all sources are the same. If I give you the Supreme Court, and you give me a memo by the Deputy Assiatant Attorney General– I win. Anything else is judicial activism.

  228. 228.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 4:21 pm

    How about this one?

    The Ordinance violates the due process rights of Plaintiffs by failing to afford any process for determining “illegal alien” status or challenging any such determination

    I already responded to that in my 3:56pm post:

    I don’t think that would substantively change the ordinance if they changed their definition of ‘illegal alien’ to be consistent with federal definitions. I think they could easily make that change and then legally enforce the hell out of their ordinance.

    You really should be a more careful reader

  229. 229.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 4:23 pm

    So, in order for state and local officials to enforce immigration laws, they have to be deputized as federal marshals, or the seizure of the alien has to be for the commission of a federal felony.

    Can you help us square that statement with this?

    It is well-settled that state law enforcement officers are permitted to enforce federal statutes where such enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963); Florida Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963). This general principle extends to state enforcement of the Immigration and Naturalization Act as well. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983), for example, the Ninth Circuit held that “federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the [Immigration and Naturalization] Act.” Id. at 475.

    Nothing there about local authorities having to be deputized to enforce immigration law

  230. 230.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 4:26 pm

    What has been argued by my detractors has morphed, after their original arguments were crushed.

    Well, perhaps everyone here would have been much better off (those not named Darrell included) actually taking a bit of time to read what the ACLU’s beef was with the Hazelton ordinances.

    Darrell, you might have crushed your opponents comments in this thread, but that is a far cry from actually addressing the merit’s of the ACLU’s arguments.

    So far, from what I can see, you think the ACLU’s arguments on equal protection claims are ‘laughable’ and merely prove how radical they are. Mind you, you’ve offered no argument or opinion for *why* they are laughable, they just are, to you, out of hand.

    You still haven’t addressed the bulk of the ACLU’s arguments. Again, that’s fine. You are under no obligation to do so… but it might actually interesting and revealing for people around here to try and argue in good faith. It is actually quite fun sometimes when the other side can present interesting angles you’ve never thought of before. Anyhoo…

  231. 231.

    Steve

    December 27, 2006 at 4:26 pm

    No one is even arguing whether Hazleton officials have the power to enforce federal law.

    That has nothing to do with whether Hazleton has the power to pass its own municipal ordinances which kinda sorta look like federal law. It simply doesn’t. Federal immigration law preempts the field.

    One central allegation of the complaint is that landlords, tenants, employers and employees can face severe sanctions under the Hazleton ordinances even if they are in complete compliance with Federal immigration law. Now, the issue hasn’t exactly been fully briefed as yet, but Darrell’s assertions that the ordinances are basically the same as federal law don’t seem particularly well-informed.

    Some residents of Hazleton have applications for citizenship and/or lawful residency pending with the Federal Government. The Feds wouldn’t deport them while their applications are pending, but Hazleton claims it’s entitled to throw them out of their homes ASAP. That doesn’t sound like Hazleton is just mimicing federal law.

    One of the plaintiffs in the federal case is a U.S. citizen whose only proof of citizenship is a Social Security card. Hazleton’s ordinance says that’s not good enough and they have the right to kick her out of her home. I wouldn’t like that either.

    The Federal Government has plenary power over immigration. Local authorities may have the right to enforce federal immigration laws under appropriate circumstances. They do not have the right to create their own scheme of immigration laws and enforce them.

    Municipalities, unlike the state and federal governments, are not sovereign entities. Rather, they are creatures of state statute, and have only the powers which state law grants them. In particular, Pennsylvania apparently prohibits municipalities from imposing special duties on “businesses, occupations or employers” that don’t apply statewide. Also, Pennsylvania’s landlord/tenant code prohbiits municipalities like Hazleton from passing their own landlord/tenant laws which are different from Pennsylvania’s code. These arguments don’t have anything to do with constitutionality, but if valid, they would nullify the Hazleton ordinances just the same.

    There are plenty of other arguments, but this is about all the non-billable time I want to spend on this. The judge’s TRO decision was, frankly, an absolute no-brainer and a lot of people in the blogosphere have looked pretty uninformed by throwing around the old “activist judge” trope.

  232. 232.

    Francis

    December 27, 2006 at 4:26 pm

    Actually, the DAAG memorandum opinion is a very good and readable (as this sort of thing goes) summary of the ability and obligation [note to Darrell: not the same thing at all] of state and local cops to enforce federal laws.

    Does anyone know anything more about Darrell? Does this individual have a job where words need to be used in accordance with their commonly accepted meaning? Because I’m new to commenting here and the longer this thread goes the more I feel like I’m in a Lewis Carroll world.

  233. 233.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 4:27 pm

    Francis, you bring up deportation as if Hazelton has tried to empower themselves to deport illegal aliens. They haven’t, and I think it’s dishonest as hell of you to suggest otherwise. They are looking to fine employers who hire illegal aliens.

    It’s difficult when the other side engages in such bad faith arguments like this.

  234. 234.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 4:27 pm

    “No Myrtle, that is not what “everyone” or anyone on this thread has said. What they are saying and have said, is that local govts have no right to enforce immigration law at all.

    I believe that characterization shows that you’re not arguing in good faith.”

    Darrell, if that’s your interpretation, you’re an idiot and no one can help you.

  235. 235.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 4:27 pm

    What they are saying and have said, is that local govts have no right to enforce immigration law at all.

    Shorter Darrell: When all else fails, lie about the other guy’s arguments!

  236. 236.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 4:29 pm

    It’s difficult when the other side engages in such bad faith arguments like this.

    There it is! Darrell’s Irony of the Day.

  237. 237.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 4:29 pm

    Darrell, “You really should be a more careful reader”

    Huh? How on earth does that address anything? I’m really struggling to understand. Say the ordinance was changed to square the language with federal law for the definition of ‘illegal alien’. How would that mitigate the fact that the ACLU’s client – a lawful *citizen* – could be denied housing by a landlord with absolutely no avenue to seek appeal or recourse?

    I don’t think you understand the basis for that objection. Did you read the entire petition?

    Cheers.

  238. 238.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 4:30 pm

    First, it was argued by TimF, TZ and others that it wasn’t “practical” to require employers to check status

    .

    Another fine performance for Darrell’s Goalposts on Wheels.

    “Check status?”

    You said “validate authenticity,” did you not?

    Your whole first two thirds of the thread line of shit were based on holding employers responsible for “authenticity” of identification. Which as I told you is not going to happen, has never happened, and cannot happen.

    “Check status” means nothing. It’s meaningless.

    Employers have no means to “check status.” They can look at cards and papers, but I can buy all of those I need for a lot less than it costs to hire a coyote to bring over a truckload of illegals.

    Everything you say is pure bullshit.

  239. 239.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 4:32 pm

    Steve Says:

    No one is even arguing whether Hazleton officials have the power to enforce federal law.

    Steve, don’t make me embarrass you by citing REPEATED arguments made by multiple posters on this thread arguing precisely that Hazelton officials have not power to enforce federal immigration law. That assertion has been the crux of their argument.

    Other than that, good post on the limited powers of municipalities.

  240. 240.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 4:34 pm

    Steve,

    Also, Pennsylvania’s landlord/tenant code prohbiits municipalities like Hazleton from passing their own landlord/tenant laws which are different from Pennsylvania’s code. These arguments don’t have anything to do with constitutionality, but if valid, they would nullify the Hazleton ordinances just the same.

    Thank you. This is another objection that was raised in the petition.

  241. 241.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 4:34 pm

    How would that mitigate the fact that the ACLU’s client – a lawful citizen – could be denied housing by a landlord with absolutely no avenue to seek appeal or recourse?

    Care to cite how a lawful citizen or resident would have “absolutely” no avenue to seek appeal or recourse? I’ll wait for your response.

  242. 242.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 4:35 pm

    Steve, don’t make me embarrass you by citing REPEATED arguments made by multiple posters on this thread arguing precisely that Hazelton officials have not power to enforce federal immigration law. That assertion has been the crux of their argument.

    Shorter Darrell: Don’t ask for evidence, damnit! Take my word for it.

  243. 243.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 4:36 pm

    One central allegation of the complaint is that landlords, tenants, employers and employees can face severe sanctions under the Hazleton ordinances even if they are in complete compliance with Federal immigration law.

    Another point was that employers, landlords and tenants might necessarily open themselves up to civil lawsuit on discrimination grounds by simply complying with the ordinances.

  244. 244.

    Francis

    December 27, 2006 at 4:37 pm

    Francis, you bring up deportation as if Hazelton has tried to empower themselves to deport illegal aliens. They haven’t, and I think it’s dishonest as hell of you to suggest otherwise. They are looking to fine employers who hire illegal aliens.

    It’s difficult when the other side engages in such bad faith arguments like this.

    Posts like this make me believe that Gresham’s Law, not Godwin’s Law, is most applicable to blog comments.

  245. 245.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 4:37 pm

    “It’s difficult when the other side engages in such bad faith arguments like this.”

    Darrell, do you even know what arguing in bad faith or strawmen are? Or did you just skim a book in high school debate class or a freshman seminar and decide that was enough? You make these kind of accusations in order to justify semantic parsing of the worst kind. It’s one thing to accuse people of being rude (which I most certainly was), and another to accuse them of being “in bad faith.” We cannot read into your posts meanings that are not there; we do not have a window into your thought process. By the very nature of print, we have to take your words at face value. If you are incapable of communicating in the print medium, wait until they invent radiotelepathy.

  246. 246.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 4:37 pm

    Another fine performance for Darrell’s Goalposts on Wheels.

    Now let’s be fair to Darrell, the wheels came off a long time ago.

  247. 247.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 4:39 pm

    “Steve, don’t make me embarrass you by citing REPEATED arguments made by multiple posters on this thread arguing precisely that Hazelton officials have not power to enforce federal immigration law.”

    Darrell, you’re interpretation of what was said and what was actually said rest on your strange reliance upon that Ninth Circuit opinion you found. The problem is, you keep MISAPPLYING it by refusing to recognize the distinction between enforcement of existing law and Hazelton’s action, which was legislation of a municipal code that did not exist before.

  248. 248.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    Darrell, do you even know what arguing in bad faith or strawmen are?

    No, he doesn’t.

    Or did you just skim a book in high school debate class or a freshman seminar and decide that was enough?

    Yes, he did.

    This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

  249. 249.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    Also, Pennsylvania’s landlord/tenant code prohbiits municipalities like Hazleton from passing their own landlord/tenant laws which are different from Pennsylvania’s code.

    Not unpersuasive, but Hazelton isn’t enacting a new tax on business. They are enforcing the law. I’ll guess that existing PA state law holds landlords responsible for certain tenant criminal action, such as renting to a known crack house.

  250. 250.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 4:44 pm

    They are enforcing the law.

    For the Nth time, dunce.

    They tried to enact a *NEW* law that overstepped municipal authority and infringed on the federal powers.

  251. 251.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 4:45 pm

    They are enforcing the law. I’ll guess that existing PA state law holds landlords responsible for certain tenant criminal action, such as renting to a known crack house.

    You are truly a piece of work.

    “I’ll guess” pretty well sums up your whole day here.

    “Most people would agree” is the standard of Assertion by Darrell.

    Can we get “most people” to agree that PA state law upholds towns and cities “enforcing” federal law by passing new municipal laws?

    Can you cite examples of cities “enforcing” federal laws by passing municipal ones? That’s a concept I am not familiar with.

    “Most people” here of course refers to a quorum of the Houston Swampbottom Trailer Park Block Watch Association, where Darrell lives.

  252. 252.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 4:49 pm

    I’d like to start a petition wherein we resolve to ignore whatever Darrell writes. He’s welcome to voice is opinion; we just don’t have to acknowledge it.

    Of course, kicking him in the rhetorical nuts is also fun.

  253. 253.

    Steve

    December 27, 2006 at 4:50 pm

    Steve, don’t make me embarrass you by citing REPEATED arguments made by multiple posters on this thread arguing precisely that Hazelton officials have not power to enforce federal immigration law. That assertion has been the crux of their argument.

    It seems to me that you were the one to bring this strawman up, and other people got tangled up in arguing against it, with varying degrees of success. The bottom line is that if Hazleton hadn’t passed its own laws, we’d hardly be having this discussion. I think it was your 2:26 pm post where you first introduced the confusion between Hazleton passing its own ordinances and “enforcement of immigration by local authorities.” See also your 2:51 post, which Zifnab responded to accurately at 2:54.

    Ultimately, I don’t like the plaintiffs’ equal protection arguments much, and I’m hazy on preemption simply because it’s a hazy sort of area. But I think the plaintiffs have a strong case that Hazleton exceeded its powers under Pennsylvania law, and also their due process argument seems pretty solid since there’s not a good method for people to challenge adverse determinations. When you file a complaint, you’re going to assert all the claims you can think of, and some are inevitably going to be weaker than others.

  254. 254.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 4:59 pm

    Darrell, let us argue about something concrete.

    Please tell me how you think the ordinances should be changed to address the complaints put forward by Jane Doe #2.

    Jane Doe #2 is permitted residence and work in the United States with the full knowledge of the Federal Government and the INA. She is not a US citizen and has absolutely no documentation that will satisfy the ordinances. Her landlord has affirmatively told her that when the ordinances are enforced, she will be kicked out.

    She does not have a social security card. She has no green card. She has no ID at all that will satisfy the ordinances. How would you change the ordinances to satisfy her complaints or would you change them at all?

    Answer that and we can discuss the feasibility…

  255. 255.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 5:03 pm

    Darrell,

    Also please address how you think the city of Hazelton should treat Jane Doe #2’s daughter –> a United States citizen every bit as much as you and I are.

    Thanks, Myrtle.

  256. 256.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 5:05 pm

    Darrell,

    And for that matter, how would you have the city of Hazelton treat Jane Doe #2’s unborn child? Other than mandating that Jane Doe #2 not abort him/her that is…

    Cheers, Myrtle.

  257. 257.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 5:32 pm

    It seems to me that you were the one to bring this strawman up, and other people got tangled up in arguing against it

    Since you called me on it, I’ll respond. Early on, TimF opposed Hazleton’s ordinance specifically because he felt it not “practical” to require employers to do any sort of checks on legal status of their employees. This sentiment was then echoed by virtually every single leftie poster at that time… You have dishonestly asserted “No one is even arguing whether Hazleton officials have the power to enforce federal law”. What a joke. Since you bring up Zifnab, let’s revisit his earlier objections

    Why is this a bad way to enforce immigration?

    For starters, it instantly makes the 13 million resident aliens living in the United States homeless. Yes, yes. I know. They’re illegal. Why should we care if 13 million people are tossed out on the street if, in fact, they are nothing more than hardened criminals living off their ill-gotten lawn care and housecleaning windfalls?

    He objects on the basis that illegals would be displaced.

    “jh” after claiming that Hazelton’s law would “absolutely” lead to racial profiling, then objected on the basis that municipalities have no authority to enforce federal law:

    Enforcing existing immigration law would mean, Oh perhaps requiring the reporting of undocumented individuals to I.C.E.

    And you do realize that the levying of penalties for the violation of Federal immigration law is a FEDERAL right, not some podunk Pennsylvania town’s?

    James Elliott makes the same argument:

    Not true – Immigration law falls under the Commerce Clause. There’s reason why little more than birth or a couple years’ residence is needed to claim citizenship in a state so long as you are a U.S. citizen. That’s why states – like Pennsylvania, say – can’t enact their own guest worker or visa programs. It’s a matter of jurisdiction as outlined in the Constitution. Or is this distinction too hard for you?

    and he does so again

    “I have advocated that a local city, county or state has the right to pass and enforce immigration laws which do not conflict with federal law.”

    Then you’re advocating an opinion in direct contradiction to over 200 years of legal precedent!

    Francis opens up with this

    Francis Says:

    Any halfwit attorney can tell everyone here that immigration law is and always has been the EXCLUSIVE province of federal law.

    Which he/she later packpeddled on after court cases refuting that point were asserted.

    Most leftist posters, directly contrary to what you asserted, argued that Hazleton doesn’t have the authority to enforce federal immigration laws, or that it’s racist/immoral/impractical to do any enforcement. And these arguments morphed into the “Hazleton has not authority” position only after their initial arguments over the difficulty and ‘impractical’ nature of immigration enforcement were crushed.

  258. 258.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 5:34 pm

    Myrtle Parker Says:

    Darrell,

    Also please address how you think the city of Hazelton should treat Jane Doe #2’s daughter—> a United States citizen every bit as much as you and I are.

    Thanks, Myrtle.

    If mommy and/or daddy came here in violation of our immigration laws, they need to be deported if caught. Take the kid with them (best choice), or make other arrangements for their child.

  259. 259.

    Steve

    December 27, 2006 at 5:37 pm

    Also please address how you think the city of Hazelton should treat Jane Doe #2’s daughter—> a United States citizen every bit as much as you and I are.

    Well, a case could be made that anchor babies like Jane Doe #2’s daughter, or Michelle Malkin, shouldn’t be entitled to citizenship just because they happened to be born here. As a noted commentator on immigration issues has noted, granting automatic citizenship to the likes of Malkin “undermines the integrity of citizenship.”

  260. 260.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 5:37 pm

    Darrell, let us argue about something concrete.

    Please tell me how you think the ordinances should be changed to address the complaints put forward by Jane Doe #2.

    Jane Doe #2 is permitted residence and work in the United States with the full knowledge of the Federal Government and the INA. She is not a US citizen and has absolutely no documentation that will satisfy the ordinances.

    If she is here legally, she would have a work visa, J1 or H1. Did Hazelton’s ordinance say that legal work visas = illegal alien? If not, why would you throw out such an example.

  261. 261.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 5:39 pm

    Well, a case could be made that anchor babies like Jane Doe #2’s daughter, or Michelle Malkin, shouldn’t be entitled to citizenship just because they happened to be born here

    If you tried to claim French or German citizenship just because your kid was born there, you’d be laughed out of the country.

  262. 262.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 5:45 pm

    Darrell says,

    If she is here legally, she would have a work visa, J1 or H1.

    This is a factually untrue statement. Again, Jane Doe #2 is here and permitted residence with the full knowledge of the Federal Government and the INA. She can not be deported.

    Of course, you know all this because you’ve actually read the ACLU’s petition that I linked above some ten’s of comments back… right? RIGHT?

    If not, why would you throw out such an example.

    *sigh* BECAUSE THIS IS THE EXAMPLE THE ACLU THROWS OUT!

    Again, to make sure you get it –> Jane Doe #2 is the one of the actual plaintiff’s in the instant action.

  263. 263.

    Steve

    December 27, 2006 at 5:45 pm

    Most leftist posters, directly contrary to what you asserted, argued that Hazleton doesn’t have the authority to enforce federal immigration laws, or that it’s racist/immoral/impractical to do any enforcement.

    You just quoted a whole bunch of people who argued that Hazleton doesn’t have the authority to pass an ordinance which conflicts with federal immigration law. (Well, some of them made completely different arguments, like it would be bad policy to start throwing people out on the street. I’m not sure what your point was there.)

    I really don’t want to keep going back and forth on this with you (heh! good luck!), but that is simply a separate argument from claiming that state and local officials have no authority to help enforce federal immigration law.

    Let’s stipulate that, if certain conditions are met, state and local officials are able to help the feds enforce immigration laws. Fine. You seem to be under the impression, however, that if a state or local government passes its own laws which are more or less consistent with federal law, that’s the same as “helping the feds enforce immigration laws.” It’s not the same. As any number of posters have already stated, in that scenario you’re passing a new law, and the legal question is entirely different.

  264. 264.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 5:47 pm

    Darrell says,

    If you tried to claim French or German citizenship just because your kid was born there, you’d be laughed out of the country.

    Completely. And. Totally. Immaterial. To. This. Discussion.

  265. 265.

    Steve

    December 27, 2006 at 5:47 pm

    If you tried to claim French or German citizenship just because your kid was born there, you’d be laughed out of the country.

    Right. Well, last I checked, French or German concepts of nationalism were not the polestar for American society. Not sure why this is relevant.

  266. 266.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 5:49 pm

    The big picture here is that most leftists, especially of the stripe who typically post as BJ, don’t want any immigration enforcement, because they think it’s mean and racist and makes them feel uncomfortable.

    So they look for excuses (it’s not ‘practical’ to check SS#’s) and loopholes to discredit ANY attempt on immigration enforcement. In the case of Hazleton, I believe even if they modified their definition of “illegal” alien to be 100% consistent with the federal definition, offered checks and balances and appeals processes that were entirely reasonable.. their enforcement of immigration laws would still be opposed by leftists here.

  267. 267.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 5:53 pm

    Let’s stipulate that, if certain conditions are met, state and local officials are able to help the feds enforce immigration laws. Fine. You seem to be under the impression, however, that if a state or local government passes its own laws which are more or less consistent with federal law, that’s the same as “helping the feds enforce immigration laws.” It’s not the same. As any number of posters have already stated, in that scenario you’re passing a new law, and the legal question is entirely different

    Let’s assume state law was changed in a way that was not prohibited by the US constitution in which a state takes it upon themselves to help enforce existing immigration law. They pass a law requiring employers to do a “reasonable” check on SS#s for all their employees using any number of certified agencies in order to verify authenticity of the papers their employees presented at time of employment. Would you all have a problem with that?

  268. 268.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 5:55 pm

    Darrell,

    That is the problem. The city of Hazelton can not conceivably alter its ordinance to be 100% consistent with the federal definition BECAUSE — and really, please try and ponder this — there is no federal definition of illegal alien!

    Whether a person is here legally or not is up to the Federal government to decide and they have a whole host of laws and other procedural issues to take into consideration. Asylum seekers, VAWA applicants, people in indeterminate state, etc, etc. The city of Hazelton, much less the employers and landlords of Hazelton are not authorized or trained in determining whether someone is here illegally. That is for the Federal Government to decide.

    Again. READ THE ACTUAL PETITION!!! Please. Please. Why are you so hostile to actually READING the petition?

  269. 269.

    Pooh

    December 27, 2006 at 5:55 pm

    I’m hazy on preemption simply because it’s a hazy sort of area.

    In general yes – whether Congress has “completely occupied the field” of legislating and regulating a certain class of activity is a pretty elastic and historically changeable standard. But we’re not talking about something on the margins here. Immigration law is, as has been cited repeatedly above, exclusive the province of the Federal Government in terms of regulation and/or legislation. Note, as many have, that regulating and legislating are different activities than enforcing (aka “executing”). You may even recall that there are these things called branches of government. They are separate. State executive officers have some degree of power to enforce (“execute”) federal laws. Not in all cases – your local sheriff has no jurisdiction on, e.g., an Indian Reservation.

    State legislatures are constrained in that they cannot legislate contrary to federal law. In some fields, such as immigration (and foreign affairs, and interstate aviation, and so on and so forth) federal control is so total that any state legislation is per se invalid as contradictory. Now, if Hazelton had merely passed ordinances which simply mirrored federal law, there is no issue, as any illegal immigrants would still be subject to the federal laws regardless of whether the local ordinance had any power, because they would overlap entirely. On any area where they differ, however, the local ordinance is unenforceable as contrary to federal law.

    I suppose, I should thank Darrel, because setting out the black letter law like this will be helpful in studying for my Bar Exam… (stupid jurisdictions with no reciprocity…)

  270. 270.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 5:55 pm

    argued that Hazleton doesn’t have the authority to enforce federal immigration laws, or that it’s racist/immoral/impractical to do any enforcement.

    I call Bullshit on Darrell’s Bullshit. It’s impractical to do it the *Darrell* way which imagines super SS ponies magically handling the *illegal* verification for purposes of hiring/renting. Just as it was unconstitutional for a municipal to enact a law that infringes on federal powers.

  271. 271.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 5:56 pm

    They pass a law requiring employers to do a “reasonable” check on SS#s for all their employees using any number of certified agencies in order to verify authenticity of the papers their employees presented at time of employment. Would you all have a problem with that?

    Earth to Darrell, that’s *ILLEGAL* under Federal Law.

  272. 272.

    Francis

    December 27, 2006 at 5:58 pm

    Darryl writes:

    Francis opens up with this

    Francis Says:

    Any halfwit attorney can tell everyone here that immigration law is and always has been the EXCLUSIVE province of federal law.

    Which he/she later packpeddled on after court cases refuting that point were asserted.

    Not that anyone is reading this thread anymore but us hardcore lunatics stuck at the office this week, but this is of course a complete mischaracterization. I have neither backpedalled nor “packpeddled”.

    The MAKING of immigration laws is exclusively vested in the federal government.

    State and local law enforcement agencies (not governments) may, in certain circumstances, participate in the ENFORCEMENT of FEDERAL laws, including but not limited to immigration laws.

    the foregoing is, of course, consistent with everything that anyone who knows anything about this issue has been writing on this thread.

    (note: the one place in law that this issue gets interesting is whether and the extent to which local governments can mandate that the law enforcement agencies within their jurisdiction participate in federal programs under which the officers get deputized with certain federal powers.)

    (also note: this has nothing to do with what Hazelton has done.)

  273. 273.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 5:58 pm

    Darrell,

    They pass a law requiring employers to do a “reasonable” check on SS#s for all their employees using any number of certified agencies in order to verify authenticity of the papers their employees presented at time of employment. Would you all have a problem with that?

    I am loathe now to answer your questions till you’ve read the actual petition, but here goes. The answer to your question is YES I’d have a problem with that. Why you might ask?

    Because possessing a valid Social Security number in this country is not a reasonable test of whether a person is entitled to residency. Again, look at the case of Jane Doe #2! She has no social security card, however she is here with the full knowledge and permission of the Federal Government and the INA. She has a right to housing, but she can not produce a SS#.

    This would all be so much easier if you’d just get rid of your ignorance and read the petition.

  274. 274.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 5:59 pm

    Completely. And. Totally. Immaterial. To. This. Discussion.

    Not at all. Not a single European country, or at least W. European country to my knowledge, gives automatic citizenship to all children who are born there, no matter where their parents are from, and I believe this policy is reasonable. I think US law needs to be changed in that illegals have exploited our generous immigration laws, crossing the border to have their babies here, and it’s time that law changed.

    I am first generation American son of an immigrant who emigrated here playing by the rules.

  275. 275.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 6:00 pm

    Darrell said:

    “The big picture here is that most leftists, especially of the stripe who typically post as BJ, don’t want any immigration enforcement, because they think it’s mean and racist and makes them feel uncomfortable.”

    See, Darrell, that’s a strawman! Bravo!

  276. 276.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    Because possessing a valid Social Security number in this country is not a reasonable test of whether a person is entitled to residency

    Ok then, to incorporate your concerns, would you oppose a requirement that employers perform reasonable checks on the validity of SSN’s AND/OR work visas?

  277. 277.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 6:03 pm

    “I think US law needs to be changed in that illegals have exploited our generous immigration laws, crossing the border to have their babies here, and it’s time that law changed.”

    It’s like trying to argue with someone who keeps switching their tenses and pronouns… Darrell, you cannot rely upon what you think the law ought to be in order to refute arguments made premised on what the law is. You’re carrying on two “debates” at once and confounding the two.

  278. 278.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 6:05 pm

    Darrell, you cannot rely upon what you think the law ought to be in order to refute arguments made premised on what the law is

    I wasn’t relying on that opinion in order refute arguments made. How honest of you to assert otherwise.

  279. 279.

    Steve

    December 27, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    Let’s assume state law was changed in a way that was not prohibited by the US constitution in which a state takes it upon themselves to help enforce existing immigration law. They pass a law requiring employers to do a “reasonable” check on SS#s for all their employees using any number of certified agencies in order to verify authenticity of the papers their employees presented at time of employment. Would you all have a problem with that?

    My first reaction is that I’m not sure states are allowed to mandate use of SS numbers in this sort of system. I don’t really know much about that.

    Do you envision a system that’s only going to apply to large employers, or does every mom-and-pop grocery and gas station need to obtain the equipment to run background checks? What about some random individual hiring a gardener?

    Perhaps the more fundamental problem is that if state and local governments start cracking down on illegal aliens without having the power to deport anyone at the end of the day, it seems to me that the likely result is that they end up dumping their illegal population on the neighboring cities or states to deal with. It’s reminiscent of cities solving their homeless problem by giving one-way bus tickets to all the homeless people.

    It also seems to me that if, let’s say, Ohio gets real tough with crackdowns on illegal immigration, and Michigan couldn’t give a shit, then what’s going to happen in the real world is that Michigan businesses are going to kick the ass of Ohio businesses with their cheap labor costs. That’s an unfortunate result, but it’s a reason why I’m not really a fan of federalism when it comes to commercial issues.

  280. 280.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    Hello! Can I please have an answer to this question?

    Ok then, to incorporate your concerns, would you oppose a requirement that employers perform reasonable checks on the validity of SSN’s AND/OR work visas?

  281. 281.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    Take the kid with them (best choice)

    Shorter Darrell: The right to American Citizenship ends at birth!

  282. 282.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 6:09 pm

    Perhaps the more fundamental problem is that if state and local governments start cracking down on illegal aliens without having the power to deport anyone at the end of the day, it seems to me that the likely result is that they end up dumping their illegal population on the neighboring cities or states to deal with.

    My argument is that even if illegal aliens are not deported, if they can’t get work, many/most will self-deport, since opportunities for them would have dried up.

  283. 283.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 6:11 pm

    I think US law needs to be changed in that illegals have exploited our generous immigration laws

    By “generous immigration laws” you mean the Constitution of the United States?

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    That law?

    Fuck it, right? I mean, who could have anticipated that Houston would be overrun with all those greasers?

  284. 284.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 6:11 pm

    Darrell,

    I think US law needs to be changed in that illegals have exploited our generous immigration laws, crossing the border to have their babies here, and it’s time that law changed.

    Then you reject the United States Constitution and the custom of this country since before it was founded. The right to natural-born citizenry is older than the constitution and enshrined in it. You’ll have to repeal the fourteenth amendment, Darrell.

    Good luck advocating the repeal of the fourteenth amendment in support of adopting French policy in the next elections ;)

  285. 285.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 6:11 pm

    Not a single European country, or at least W. European country to my knowledge, gives automatic citizenship to all children who are born there, no matter where their parents are from, and I believe this policy is reasonable. I think US law needs to be changed in that illegals have exploited our generous immigration laws, crossing the border to have their babies here, and it’s time that law changed.

    Shorter Darrell: I got mine, fuck everyone else.

    American Law grants citizenship at birth, you don’t like it, you can always leave. After all, if the law were changed as you wanted it, *you* wouldn’t even be a citizen Darrell.

  286. 286.

    Pooh

    December 27, 2006 at 6:14 pm

    (note: the one place in law that this issue gets interesting is whether and the extent to which local governments can mandate that the law enforcement agencies within their jurisdiction participate in federal programs under which the officers get deputized with certain federal powers.)

    I think you meant to say the extent to which “Federal” governments can mandate local law enforcement due this or that. IIRC there’s something about an “anti-delegation” principle or something like that, where is my Con Law outline again?

  287. 287.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 6:15 pm

    Then you reject the United States Constitution

    I disagree with that portion of a later amendment, the 14th amendment, which provides citizenship to all those born on US soil, even if mommy illegally snuck over the border while pregnant to make them a US citizen. I think an amendment to that amendment is needed.

  288. 288.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 6:15 pm

    My argument is that even if illegal aliens are not deported, if they can’t get work, many/most will self-deport, since opportunities for them would have dried up.

    Shorter Darrell: Even though they came looking for work, if we take away the work they will use the money they do not have to leave instead of turning to alternative methods of trying to make a buck.

  289. 289.

    Steve

    December 27, 2006 at 6:15 pm

    Immigration law is, as has been cited repeatedly above, exclusive the province of the Federal Government in terms of regulation and/or legislation.

    But it’s not quite that simple, my bar-studying friend. The area where the federal government has plenary, untouchable power is the literal realm of “immigration,” meaning laws which determine who gets to enter the country and who has to leave. Everyone accepts that only the federal government gets to make that call.

    But the Hazleton ordinances aren’t “immigration” laws in that sense. Hazleton isn’t trying to throw anyone out of the country, they’re simply trying to deny various benefits to people based upon their immigration status. That may or may not be okay – as you know, some classifications are impermissible and some require heightened scrutiny – but it’s not per se improper for a state or local government to pass a law which merely touches upon what we think of as “immigration” issues.

    If a state, as opposed to a municipality, passed laws like the ones at issue here, and provided some type of appropriate administrative scheme for review of decisions, I think the legal issues would get a lot trickier. (However, as I alluded to in my last comment, there are practical reasons why states don’t tend to do this!) In the case of Hazleton I suspect it’s going to end up as a slam dunk.

  290. 290.

    Francis

    December 27, 2006 at 6:15 pm

    Darryl writes:

    Let’s assume state law was changed in a way that was not prohibited by the US constitution in which a state takes it upon themselves to help enforce existing immigration law.

    Oh My Effing God — 272 comments and we finally get an interesting question.

    Now, what might such a law look like?

    A. A mandate that all employers accurately identify the immigration status of all employees. Hmm. Likely a non-starter. The business community would go beserk over the costs and inherent difficulties. Even if such a mandate were imposed, the state could not mandate that the employer identify the illegals to the state. Since employing illegals is a crime, requiring reporting of illegal employees would violate the employer’s 5th amendment rights.

    B. Deputizing the state highway patrol (for example) to conduct random raids on employers to verify the employment status of all employees. Hmm. I see some 4th Amendment problems here.

    C. Creating a new state police force, get its officers deputized, and launch criminal investigations within the constraints of the Bill of Rights of employers suspected of employing illegals. Sure, why not. But given the constraints on most state budgets these days, I suspect you’ll see a distinct lack of enthusiasm in 50 state capitols to spend taxpayer dollars this way.

  291. 291.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 6:16 pm

    I think an amendment to that amendment is needed.

    And what you think matters less to us then a cow fart.

  292. 292.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 6:17 pm

    Couple points:

    Ok then, to incorporate your concerns, would you oppose a requirement that employers perform reasonable checks on the validity of SSN’s AND/OR work visas?

    1. Employers are already barred by federal law from knowingly hiring undocumented workers. I don’t support redundant laws and I don’t support local cities enacting laws on immigration. That is the role of the Federal government.

    2. Granting this part of the ordinance has no relation to the other onerous parts of the ordinance.

    There is no such thing as a HOUSING VISA.

    Now, will you answer my questions? How should the ordinance be changed to reflect the objections by Jane Doe #2 as described in the complaint? Or should the ordinances be changed?

  293. 293.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 6:17 pm

    Hello! Can I please have an answer to this question?

    Now, will you answer my questions? How should the ordinance be changed to reflect the objections by Jane Doe #2 as described in the complaint? Or should the ordinances be changed?

  294. 294.

    Pooh

    December 27, 2006 at 6:18 pm

    Perhaps the more fundamental problem is that if state and local governments start cracking down on illegal aliens without having the power to deport anyone at the end of the day, it seems to me that the likely result is that they end up dumping their illegal population on the neighboring cities or states to deal with. It’s reminiscent of cities solving their homeless problem by giving one-way bus tickets to all the homeless people.

    There’s a line of SCOTUS cases dealing with similar issues in terms of highway safety regs. Certain states started passing laws against certain types of trucks being operated on their highways and SCOTUS said they couldn’t do this as it both impeded interstate commerce and foisted burdens on neighboring states.

  295. 295.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 6:18 pm

    “I wasn’t relying on that opinion in order refute arguments made. How honest of you to assert otherwise.”

    Then please explain to me your point. I get tired of trying to endlessly parse your sentences in order to arrive at your meaning. And enough of your passive-aggressive “how honest” or “bad faith” crap. Condescension requires a certain mental agility and facility with words you appear to lack.

  296. 296.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 6:19 pm

    A. A mandate that all employers accurately identify the immigration status of all employees. Hmm. Likely a non-starter. The business community would go beserk over the costs and inherent difficulties

    As I’ve already demonstrated through links to online services (SSA and private) which can validate SS#’s, the “costs” and “difficulties” are minimal. So let’s scratch that argument in its tracks. As for the business community going “beserk”, only the tiny segment who hire illegals would object, and f*ck them, as they need to be jailed anyway for knowingly hiring illegals.

  297. 297.

    Steve

    December 27, 2006 at 6:21 pm

    My argument is that even if illegal aliens are not deported, if they can’t get work, many/most will self-deport, since opportunities for them would have dried up.

    I think you underestimate the number of black-market opportunities out there and our ability to crack down on them without doubling everyone’s tax bill. Like I said above, it’s not realistic to think there will be background checks of everyone who works at the corner grocery or does gardening around the neighborhood.

    We can certainly make it harder for illegals to obtain work around the margins, but when you’re dealing with people who would rather shine shoes on the street than go back home, it’s unlikely you’re going to spark any major behavioral changes.

    You don’t just pass a background check law and voila, job opportunities for 13 million illegals dry up.

  298. 298.

    Pooh

    December 27, 2006 at 6:21 pm

    The area where the federal government has plenary, untouchable power is the literal realm of “immigration,”

    Well yes, but as I mentioned before, what constitutes the literal realm is a rather malleable concept, and analogizing to dormant commerce clause cases, I would be somewhat surprised if states were allowed to adopt immigration policies more restrictive than the federal government’s.

    And I’m not actually studying yet, the damn thing isn’t til the end of February. Gots to get my billables up before then, dig?

  299. 299.

    Pooh

    December 27, 2006 at 6:23 pm

    I think you underestimate the number of black-market opportunities out there and our ability to crack down on them without doubling everyone’s tax bill.

    What do you mean? Nobody drank during prohibition. Or bets on sports now. There is no “black market” in a world run by Econ 101 principles.

  300. 300.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 6:23 pm

    Myrtle Parker Says:

    Hello! Can I please have an answer to this question?

    Already answered in my 5:37pm post. This is the second time you’ve failed to note a response I’ve made. If you have an issue with my response, be specific.

  301. 301.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 6:24 pm

    As I’ve already demonstrated through links to online services (SSA and private) which can validate SS#’s, the “costs” and “difficulties” are minimal.

    And has been pointed out time and again, is *illegal* to use in hiring/renting.

    Not to mention, what happens when you have an error? Those do happen, which is why the SS admin SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS using the SSN to determine a person’s legal status.

  302. 302.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 6:25 pm

    FWIW, I’m all for the federal congress passing more stringent penalties for employers who knowingly employ illegals. Also, I have no problem considering different ways to make it easier (or even mandatory) for employers to check the status of potential hires.

    However, I don’t think Hazelton should be empowered to do this on its own. And the other portions of the ordinances are hands down unconstitutional in my mind. You can’t deny housing to someone just because they don’t have a valid SS# or work visa. Period.

    That’s where I agree with you Darrell. Maybe now you’ll answer my questions.

  303. 303.

    Steve

    December 27, 2006 at 6:27 pm

    As for the business community going “beserk”, only the tiny segment who hire illegals would object, and f*ck them, as they need to be jailed anyway for knowingly hiring illegals.

    How does a “tiny segment” of the business community manage to provide 13 million jobs?

  304. 304.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 6:28 pm

    Darrell,

    Already answered in my 5:37pm post. This is the second time you’ve failed to note a response I’ve made. If you have an issue with my response, be specific.

    DUDE! Seriously, you need to READ before you type. You addressed Jane Doe #2’s DAUGHTER! I was asking about Jane Doe herself! Read again:

    Now, will you answer my questions? How should the ordinance be changed to reflect the objections by Jane Doe #2 as described in the complaint? Or should the ordinances be changed?

    Again. Read the petition.

  305. 305.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 6:29 pm

    I think you underestimate the number of black-market opportunities out there and our ability to crack down on them without doubling everyone’s tax bill. Like I said above, it’s not realistic to think there will be background checks of everyone who works at the corner grocery or does gardening around the neighborhood.

    Checks are so easily made, that it’s simply not true that they could only make a difference “at the margins”. All employers, large and small, are currently required to obtain identification and SS# or work permit. This additional requirement to run the SS# through an internet database would be extremely minimal. After a few high profile arrests of offenders, many other employers would fall in line.

    Restaurants, construction and agriculture employ the bulk of the illegal immigrants. If you crack down on them, I don’t believe the remaining black market would be sufficient for most to live the way they want to live here. Most would return in my opinion.

  306. 306.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 6:30 pm

    As I’ve already demonstrated through links to online services (SSA and private) which can validate SS#’s, the “costs” and “difficulties” are minimal.

    Shorter Darrell: I have demonstrated I am a complete idiot who can’t read.

  307. 307.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 6:30 pm

    How does a “tiny segment” of the business community manage to provide 13 million jobs?

    There are 13 million illegals, not all of working age, and not all employed. But for the sake of argument, lets say all 13 million are employed. 13 million out of what, 200 million jobs, most definitely = “tiny segment”. Wouldn’t you agree?

  308. 308.

    Francis

    December 27, 2006 at 6:30 pm

    Pooh: Oddly enough I accurately wrote what I meant.

    The federal government offers programs to various police forces that touch on immigration. One such program is that officers get deputized, trained on the use of various database and on immigration law, then check the immigration status of people who have been arrested. Since fingerprints are taken at booking, there is a pretty solid ID.

    Now it is both a crime and deportable conduct to return to the US following deportation, unless the status is otherwise regularized (I think). So if someone is under arrest, gets fingerprinted, and the ID generated by the fingerprint creates a match in the immigration database (the search of which is done only by the trained and deputized officer), the arrested individual can then be held pending pickup by ICE, even if the crime for which he was arrested was pretty minimal.

    The idea behind the law was to protect immigrant communities by creating a way of imposing federal felonies on illegal immigrants who cross the border and prey on illegals here. Since illegals don’t talk to cops much, these predators can be a real problem.

    Now, here in Southern California a City Council adopted an ordinance directing the Chief of Police to get a certain number of his officers trained under this system. Besides creating a big political fight, there was some discussion that the City Council was exceeding the discretion vested in the Chief.

    (I’m pretty sure that legal claim was shot down. In California, contra Steve’s post above, cities are creatures of the State Constitution and have very broad constitutional powers to legislate for the benefit of the welfare of their residents.)

  309. 309.

    Steve

    December 27, 2006 at 6:30 pm

    Well yes, but as I mentioned before, what constitutes the literal realm is a rather malleable concept, and analogizing to dormant commerce clause cases, I would be somewhat surprised if states were allowed to adopt immigration policies more restrictive than the federal government’s.

    The case you should read on preemption is De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976).

  310. 310.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 6:31 pm

    Darrell,

    Jane Doe #2’s complaints are not about work. She has been threatened with eviction by this ordinance even though she is permitted residence within this country by the Federal Government and with full knowledge of INA.

    Read the petition.

  311. 311.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 6:32 pm

    FWIW, I’m all for the federal congress passing more stringent penalties for employers who knowingly employ illegals. Also, I have no problem considering different ways to make it easier (or even mandatory) for employers to check the status of potential hires.

    However, I don’t think Hazelton should be empowered to do this on its own

    Why shouldn’t they? Assuming their laws are in line with federal law?

  312. 312.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 6:33 pm

    Darrell,

    Jane Doe #2’s complaints are not about work. She has been threatened with eviction by this ordinance even though she is permitted residence within this country by the Federal Government and with full knowledge of INA

    Myrtle, if she is here legally, she would have a legal SSN and/or legal visa.

  313. 313.

    Pooh

    December 27, 2006 at 6:34 pm

    I think you underestimate the number of black-market opportunities out there and our ability to crack down on them without doubling everyone’s tax bill.

    Ok, sorry, I was thinking of something else entirely.

    What I was talking about came up in terms of things like federal gun control legislation where the law purported to require state officials to conduct background checks and what not.

  314. 314.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 6:36 pm

    Darrell,

    Read the petition. You don’t get to ask me any questions until you’ve read the petition and addressed my questions about Jane Doe #2 and her pending eviction under the ordinances.

    You actually respond to my question and maybe I’ll respond to yours. Why should I continue when it is like pulling teeth getting you to actually read the petition.

  315. 315.

    Pooh

    December 27, 2006 at 6:36 pm

    Oops my last post was supposed to be in response to

    Pooh: Oddly enough I accurately wrote what I meant.

  316. 316.

    Francis

    December 27, 2006 at 6:36 pm

    If anybody believes that the agriculture, hotel and dining, construction and meatpacking industries lack political clout in states where a lot of illegal immigrants live, I have shares in bridge to sell you. Buy enough and you get your own tollbooth.

  317. 317.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 6:37 pm

    Darrell,

    Myrtle, if she is here legally, she would have a legal SSN and/or legal visa.

    WRONG! Read the factual allegations for chrissakes!! What does it take to get you to actually read the mother #($&#*&^%#&*^ petition! My god!

  318. 318.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 6:39 pm

    Francis Says:

    If anybody believes that the agriculture, hotel and dining, construction and meatpacking industries lack political clout in states where a lot of illegal immigrants live, I have shares in bridge to sell you. Buy enough and you get your own tollbooth.

    Poll after poll show strong support, 2/3 of the country, support more aggressive enforcement of illegal aliens. Whatever influence those businesses may have, and it’s not as much as you have suggested, politicians are going to think long and hard before crossing voters on this issue.

  319. 319.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 6:40 pm

    WRONG! Read the factual allegations for chrissakes!! What does it take to get you to actually read the mother #($&#*&%#&* petition! My god!

    Why don’t you explain, instead of sending me on research missions? Do you have the capacity to explain it?

  320. 320.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 6:40 pm

    only the tiny segment who hire illegals would object

    Therfore, the great majority of employers will welcome the onerous costs and burdens of “validating” the identity and status of everyone they want to hire?

    Have you, uh, checked that out with any actual employers, or are you blowing this bullshit out your ass as usual?

    Why would employers take on a burden that large in order to deal with your “tiny” segment of problem-causers?

    You really haven’t thought any of this through, have you asshole?

  321. 321.

    Steve

    December 27, 2006 at 6:41 pm

    There are 13 million illegals, not all of working age, and not all employed. But for the sake of argument, lets say all 13 million are employed. 13 million out of what, 200 million jobs, most definitely = “tiny segment”. Wouldn’t you agree?

    Not at all, but look, let’s not quibble over semantics. It seems to me that if you throw the employers responsible for providing 13 million jobs (or 10 million or whatever) in jail, you’d fuck up the economy pretty bad.

    Or let’s say we manage to scare the employers straight and they all stop hiring illegals. Given the historically low unemployment rates that I keep hearing about, where are they going to find 13 million legal residents to fill those jobs?

    It seems to me that the primary reason the Republican Party hates to touch immigration is because of the business lobby. And if it were really just a “tiny segment” of the business community that hires illegals, whereas all the other business would love to see a crackdown to eliminate the competitive edge those employers gain, it seems to me there wouldn’t be a problem at all. The Republicans aren’t THAT in love with winning the Latino immigrant vote – not if a large majority of the American people agrees with guys like you on immigration, that’s for sure.

    My opinion is that you’re overestimating the number of people who think deporting illegals is critically important, underestimating the number of businesses who love the cheap labor and would gladly spend their political capital in order to keep it, and then scratching your head trying to figure out why the government doesn’t simply follow the will of the people and do something about the issue. I just don’t see the overwhelming mandate that you do.

  322. 322.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 6:41 pm

    support more aggressive enforcement of illegal aliens.

    Aside from the fact that you can’t write a sentence, what do you think has stopped us from enforcing these laws for sixty years, Darrell?

  323. 323.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 6:43 pm

    This additional requirement to run the SS# through an internet database would be extremely minimal.

    I-L-L-E-G-A-L.

    If you crack down on them, I don’t believe the remaining black market would be sufficient for most to live the way they want to live here. Most would return in my opinion

    Shorter Darrell: I see nothing wrong with people going home using money they do not have rather then staying and acquiring money through other means.

  324. 324.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 6:43 pm

    What does it take to get you to actually read the mother #($&#*&%#&* petition! My god!

    You must be new to arguing with Darrell. I’ve described it as “trying to pick up mercury with a tweezers.”

    Whatever you say or ask, he just elides. He’s completely dishonest.

  325. 325.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 6:44 pm

    Darrell,

    Why don’t you explain, instead of sending me on research missions? Do you have the capacity to explain it?

    Holy crap. God forbid you actually take an interest in understanding what the hell it is you are ostensibly arguing about.

    I mean I dictated four paragraphs of the petition for you.
    I linked the ACLU page with all the legal documents.
    I gave you a direct link to the actual petition.
    I did this tens of comments ago and you’ve continued giving your ignorant comments this entire time…

    Yet you can’t be bothered to go and educate yourself. You can’t be bothered to simply click. a. link. and read for yourself.

    My god… you come on here and talk about people arguing in bad faith?

    Take the log out of your own eye pal.

  326. 326.

    Pooh

    December 27, 2006 at 6:46 pm

    To flesh out TZ’s point even more, it’s not just the employers of the 13 million who would have the burden of doing checks on every employee, but every employer in the nation. Unless you are suggesting that the law should only apply to those who are hiring brown and/or funny talking people. That might present one or two legal difficulties.

  327. 327.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 6:48 pm

    I’ve described it as “trying to pick up mercury with a tweezers.”

    I’d describe more as repeatedly shooting a zombie in the face who doesn’t have the good grace to realize it needs to stay down and stop moving.

  328. 328.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 6:49 pm

    “Why don’t you explain, instead of sending me on research missions? Do you have the capacity to explain it?”

    Yeah, Myrtle! It’s so much easier to misrepresent you or fail to comprehend your arguments if I don’t read the supporting material! In your face!

  329. 329.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 6:49 pm

    Or let’s say we manage to scare the employers straight and they all stop hiring illegals. Given the historically low unemployment rates that I keep hearing about, where are they going to find 13 million legal residents to fill those jobs?

    They’d find ways, including increasing legal immigration and stopgap temporary worker visas

    It seems to me that the primary reason the Republican Party hates to touch immigration is because of the business lobby

    Not true. That statement only applies to out of touch Republican elites, and is strongly opposed by a huge majority of Republican rank and file

    The Republicans aren’t THAT in love with winning the Latino immigrant vote

    I/we have no problem with LEGAL latino immigrants, or legal immigrants from other parts of the world. The problem is with illegal immigrants

    My opinion is that you’re overestimating the number of people who think deporting illegals is critically important, underestimating the number of businesses who love the cheap labor and would gladly

    That may be true, but my sense is that most Americans, Dems and Republicans, are plenty riled up over this issue. Lots of emotion on this issue if you talk with people on both side. I see a huge disconnect between politician’s actions and what voters want, and I think this could easily be a winning campaign issue for a politician who could handle it right.. since your side will most definitely be screaming “racist” at anyone who tries to aggressively enforce our immigration laws.

  330. 330.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 6:50 pm

    Yet you can’t be bothered to go and educate yourself. You can’t be bothered to simply click. a. link. and read for yourself.

    And you can’t be bothered to explain. You’re like petulant foot stamping child. Seriously.

  331. 331.

    Francis

    December 27, 2006 at 6:52 pm

    re: polling.

    meh. Polls generally demonstrate the willingness of voters (a) to spend tax dollars on all sorts of things and (b) not to raise taxes.

    At the point that the Governor of California proposes diverting substantial funds from existing law enforcement in order to start cracking down on employers of illegal immigrants and the public doesn’t go crazy, then you might have a point.

    But if you haven’t noticed yet, quality law enforcement doesn’t come cheap. It requires, among other things, cops, judges, courtrooms, prosecutors, jails, bailiffs, prisons, prison guards, etc.

  332. 332.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 6:52 pm

    This is annoying. How do I do that little text in a blue box thingy?

  333. 333.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 6:52 pm

    This is amazing.

    Guess how many comments separate this post by me:

    Darrell,
    Ahh yes, here is the actual complaint that the ACLU filed in the case for your benefit:
    http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file582_26463.pdf
    Cheers.

    From this post by Darrell:

    Why don’t you explain, instead of sending me on research missions? Do you have the capacity to explain it?

    The answer is one hundred and sixty six posts. In those 166 posts I implored Darrell to actually read the petition. Nevermind that I typed up four paragraphs for him… He can’t possibly be bothered to go on “research missions” before he continues with his bloviation about ‘bad faith’. Wow.

    166 posts.

  334. 334.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 6:52 pm

    I/we have no problem with LEGAL latino immigrants, or legal immigrants from other parts of the world. The problem is with illegal immigrants

    And how do you visually identify an illegal immigrant?

  335. 335.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 6:53 pm

    “And you can’t be bothered to explain. You’re like petulant foot stamping child. Seriously.”

    Hi, Pot? This is Kettle. You’re black, motherfucker!

  336. 336.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 6:54 pm

    To flesh out TZ’s point even more, it’s not just the employers of the 13 million who would have the burden of doing checks on every employee, but every employer in the nation

    You act as if employers don’t already have to get ID and SS# before hiring.. Let’s get this straight, libs have no problem foisting huge environmental costs and regulations on businesses.. but requiring them to type a SS# into an internet database? “That’s over the line!”

  337. 337.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 6:54 pm

    Darrell,

    And you can’t be bothered to explain. You’re like petulant foot stamping child. Seriously.

    Hah! I’ve only typed up four of the freaking paragraphs for your lazy ass!! I’ve only described Jane Doe #2 like ten times to you. I’ve only linked you to the actual petition.

    Holy crap do you have any sense of shame?

  338. 338.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 6:55 pm

    And how do you visually identify an illegal immigrant?

    I don’t know. You tell us.

  339. 339.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 6:58 pm

    but requiring them to type a SS# into an internet database?

    Shorter Darrell: I don’t care if it’s illegal, just do it!

  340. 340.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 6:58 pm

    Myrtle, if you want to bring up the extreme case, the exceptions to the rule which represent less than .01% of the cases, I’m perfectly willing to stipulate that Hazelton not be allowed to kick out Jane Doe, if they are permitted to crack down on the rest of the illegals, who are illegal by federal definition.

    Was that your really your point? See what I mean about how so many of you argue in bad faith?

  341. 341.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 6:59 pm

    Darrell says: I don’t know.

    Truth passes Darrell’s lips for the first time in this thread.

  342. 342.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 6:59 pm

    but requiring them to type a SS# into an internet database

    What part of “can’t be done” don’t you get, asshole?

    Shut up.

  343. 343.

    Pooh

    December 27, 2006 at 7:01 pm

    This is annoying. How do I do that little text in a blue box thingy?

    blockquote,(text)/blockquote

    with brackets.

  344. 344.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 7:01 pm

    I’m perfectly willing to stipulate that Hazelton not be allowed to kick out Jane Doe, if they are permitted to crack down on the rest of the illegals, who are illegal by federal definition.

    Shorter Darrell: Take your facts and bite me!

  345. 345.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 7:03 pm

    Off topic, I have a great idea. How about a website where I type in SS numbers, and the SSA gives me back the names of the people who have those numbers.

    This would make life a lot easier. Who’s in favor?

    Hands?

    The fact that this is essentially what Darrell is proposing as the solution to the immigration problem is purely coincidental. No connection at all.

  346. 346.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 7:03 pm

    Darrell,

    That was not the question. I want to know:

    1. Have you actually read the petition yet?

    2. If not, do not pass go, do not get out of jail… GO READ THE MOTHER#(*$(#&(* PETITION!

    …
    …
    …
    ..
    .

    3. If you’ve now read the petition, how would you change it to meet the objections raised by Jane Doe #2. If you would not change it, why?

    I really want to know how you think Hazelton could draft an ordinance that would satisfy Jane Doe #2’s right to housing.

  347. 347.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 7:05 pm

    blockquote,(text)/blockquote

    Yay!

  348. 348.

    Steve

    December 27, 2006 at 7:06 pm

    It seems to me that the primary reason the Republican Party hates to touch immigration is because of the business lobby

    Not true. That statement only applies to out of touch Republican elites, and is strongly opposed by a huge majority of Republican rank and file

    Do we actually disagree? What constituency are the “out of touch Republican elites” beholden to, if not the business lobby?

    On the Democratic side, when we say people are “out of touch”, we typically mean they’re listening to the folks with money rather than the majority of their constituents. Is your point much different than that?

  349. 349.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 7:06 pm

    166 posts.

    And all of Darrell’s pleadings about bad faith and that leftists won’t answer his questions (everyone of which has been answered) and Darrell STILL can’t bother himself to actually read the case documents.

    Unbelievable.

  350. 350.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 7:07 pm

    Unbelievable.

    Only if you haven’t met a Darrell before.

    Welcome to Balloon Juice.

  351. 351.

    Pooh

    December 27, 2006 at 7:09 pm

    Off topic, I have a great idea. How about a website where I type in SS numbers, and the SSA gives me back the names of the people who have those numbers.

    Even better idea, how about a website where you type in a name and it gives you the SSN’s of everyone with that name!

  352. 352.

    Steve

    December 27, 2006 at 7:10 pm

    Myrtle, if you want to bring up the extreme case, the exceptions to the rule which represent less than .01% of the cases, I’m perfectly willing to stipulate that Hazelton not be allowed to kick out Jane Doe, if they are permitted to crack down on the rest of the illegals, who are illegal by federal definition.

    Perhaps Hazleton should have been “willing to stipulate” rather than defend the ordinances as written. However, there’s a lot more than .01% of the legal population who wouldn’t be able to produce their “papers” on demand.

  353. 353.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 7:13 pm

    And the most unbelievable part? After 166 comments of pointless back and forth over strawmen… and even without reading the case documents Darrell is now willing to stipulate that the ACLU has a point and the supposed “activist judge” was right to rule in plaintiff’s ( at least Jane Doe #2’s ) favor.

  354. 354.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 7:15 pm

    Welcome to Balloon Juice.

    Darrell is the Magic 8 Ball of Blogoramaville.

    Reply hazy, try again.
    Better not tell you now.
    Ask again later.
    Concentrate and ask again.
    Cannot predict now.

    Pretty much useless as a source of information. However, if you need something to weight down a stack of papers, Darrell’s head is just the thing.

  355. 355.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 7:15 pm

    See what I mean about how so many of you argue in bad faith?

    Arguing in bad faith is me giving conservative arguments for my liberal policies. If I have a belief that I know not everyone shares, so I then present my argument for it using broader terms or analyses I don’t really agree with, then I am arguing in bad faith.

    Bad faith is not “The exception that proves the rule” argumentation. Bad faith is not taking what you say out of context. Bad faith is not using strawmen. Bad faith, is, in fact, a very specific form of argumentation which Myrtle was most definitely not engaging in.

  356. 356.

    Myrtle Parker

    December 27, 2006 at 7:17 pm

    Perhaps Hazleton should have been “willing to stipulate” rather than defend the ordinances as written.

    Have a hard time seeing the Mayor stipulate that his ordinance was unconstitutional or at least badly written. What’s more, I think the lawyers would have done well to consult with the likes of the ACLU (or immigrant groups) before they drafted the legislation.

    Of course, the Mayor could never be seen actually *talking* with the likes of the immigrant groups!

  357. 357.

    Pooh

    December 27, 2006 at 7:22 pm

    JFE, what you don’t realize is that the regulars in this thread have no expectation of moving Darrell an inch or of even having our arguments acknowledged. It’s mostly stress relief/sport/practice. Don’t worry, no matter how many times you refute his arguments, they return like a zombie were-wolf on the next full moon. Steve, as our unofficial archivist, can probably provide links to repeated, substantively identical, threads were his arguments on wiretapping are turned into pincushions.

    As a general rule, you would be wise to recognize that he doesn’t really grasp the implications of the distinction between “suspected” or “designated” and “proven” or “convicted”. Except when you are dealing with a Republican official, then innocence until and often after proof of guilt is the greatest thing since St. Reagan.

  358. 358.

    James F. Elliott

    December 27, 2006 at 7:26 pm

    Pooh,

    Thanks for the clarification. I recently had a similar dustup with someone on the comment thread for an Andrew Sullivan piece at The New Republic.

    By the way, my wife loves your cartoons.

  359. 359.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 7:47 pm

    Perhaps Hazleton should have been “willing to stipulate” rather than defend the ordinances as written. However, there’s a lot more than .01% of the legal population who wouldn’t be able to produce their “papers” on demand.

    If you’re here legally, you’re gonna have a visa or green card in the overwhelming majority of cases. This Jane Doe #2 example btw may not even be granted permission to stay. She’s in purgatory, since she claimed she was in an abusive marriage.

  360. 360.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 7:49 pm

    Of course, the Mayor could never be seen actually talking with the likes of the immigrant groups!

    In my experience, most leftists prefer to deal in caricatures of the other side. Here is one example among gazillions.

  361. 361.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 7:52 pm

    Perhaps Hazleton should have been “willing to stipulate” rather than defend the ordinances as written. However, there’s a lot more than .01% of the legal population who wouldn’t be able to produce their “papers” on demand.

    Aren’t there consequences if an officer pulls you over, and you’re not able to provide Drivers license and registration on demand? It’s a safe bet Hazelton gave the immigrants ample time to ‘find’ their papers.

  362. 362.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 7:54 pm

    Pooh Says:

    JFE, what you don’t realize is that the regulars in this thread have no expectation of moving Darrell an inch or of even having our arguments acknowledged.

    Pooh never offers arguments, only snark (see threads from the past several months as proof of this). But if it makes you feel better/superior to dismiss my arguments without basis.. whatever floats your boat.

  363. 363.

    Pooh

    December 27, 2006 at 8:04 pm

    Darrell Says:

    I like pie!

    Hey, me too man. Happy Holidays.

  364. 364.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    For those who just tuned in to BJ, be aware that the Darrell effect you see here has been in operation every day for years. Uncountable numbers of threads turned into long harangues and useless churn by Darrell, week in, week out, month after month, year after year.

    In fact, this particular thread is not a particularly bad example of Darrell at work, just average.

    Darrell is the lowest common denominator to which every topic must be reduced on this blog.

    I have no explanation for it, it’s just the way it is.

  365. 365.

    Krista

    December 27, 2006 at 8:07 pm

    JFE, what you don’t realize is that the regulars in this thread have no expectation of moving Darrell an inch or of even having our arguments acknowledged.

    No, but on the rare occasions when it happens, it’s definitely cause for the happy dance. :)

  366. 366.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 8:08 pm

    For those who just tuned in to BJ,

    As this thread amply demonstrates, when you have no facts and no argument, personal insults are all that’s left.

  367. 367.

    ThymeZone

    December 27, 2006 at 8:10 pm

    when you have no facts and no argument,

    Truly, you can’t make this guy up. He’s all too real.

  368. 368.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 8:22 pm

    As this thread amply demonstrates, when you have no facts and no argument, personal insults are all that’s left.

    I will go out on a limb and say it.

    Darrell’s Irony of the *Year*.

  369. 369.

    TenguPhule

    December 27, 2006 at 8:24 pm

    She’s in purgatory, since she claimed she was in an abusive marriage.

    Shorter Darrell: Shut up and remain your husband’s property, woman!

    Keep on digging that hole, Darrell.

  370. 370.

    Steve

    December 27, 2006 at 8:29 pm

    Aren’t there consequences if an officer pulls you over, and you’re not able to provide Drivers license and registration on demand?

    Uh, yeah, you get a ticket. I guess that’s roughly comparable to losing your home.

  371. 371.

    Pooh

    December 27, 2006 at 8:41 pm

    Aren’t there consequences if an officer pulls you over, and you’re not able to provide Drivers license and registration on demand?

    Darrell (artist’s conception)

  372. 372.

    demimondian

    December 27, 2006 at 8:47 pm

    Aren’t there consequences if an officer pulls you over, and you’re not able to provide Drivers license and registration on demand?

    Yeah, the last time it happened to me, the policeman dragged me out my car by the collar, then pinned me to the ground and applied a choke hold to protect himself against me. After I died, he explained that I’d been acting erratically at the time of the stop, and that he was only using the force necessary to protect me from myself.

  373. 373.

    Darrell

    December 27, 2006 at 11:31 pm

    Yeah, the last time it happened to me, the policeman dragged me out my car by the collar, then pinned me to the ground and applied a choke hold to protect himself against me. After I died, he explained that I’d been acting erratically at the time of the stop,

    Many of you leftists think you’re normal.. I’m sorry, but you’re just not. Do you people function in society? Sorry, but I just don’t see it.

  374. 374.

    demimondian

    December 28, 2006 at 1:06 am

    Do you people function in society? Sorry, but I just don’t see it.

    Darrell, I am constantly amazed by the catalogue things which you are unable to see. Fortunately, truth does not depend on the concurrence of the ignorant.

  375. 375.

    lard lad

    December 28, 2006 at 6:52 am

    Last time I glanced at this thread (when leaving the long diatribe against the War on Christmas nonsense), it was about 50 posts long.

    Next time I wandered by – whoa! – up to 375!

    And I murmured, “Darrell’s in the house.”

  376. 376.

    ThymeZone

    December 28, 2006 at 9:49 am

    Do you people function in society?

    You really need some new material, man.

  377. 377.

    Zifnab

    December 28, 2006 at 10:45 am

    As this thread amply demonstrates, when you have no facts and no argument, personal insults are all that’s left.

    I will go out on a limb and say it.

    Darrell’s Irony of the Year.

    Dude. He says that about every ten minutes in one variation or another. I don’t think Darrell can finish a late thread post without accusing someone of persecuting him on personal grounds. Admittedly, that’s after the fourth or fifth lap on his circular logic track, but whateva.

  378. 378.

    Ted

    December 28, 2006 at 11:24 am

    Wow. Over 100 of the posts on this thread were by Darrell.

    They do have medication for OCD…

    Many of you leftists think you’re normal.. I’m sorry, but you’re just not. Do you people function in society? Sorry, but I just don’t see it.

    Yep. Darrell is a good judge of what’s ‘normal’…

  379. 379.

    Bob In Pacifica

    December 28, 2006 at 2:52 pm

    Has anyone mentioned The Angry Samoans’ classic, “Lights Out”?

    “I can’t see too well. What’s it all about?”
    “I dunno, man, did you poke your eyes out?”
    “Sure thing, I did it today.
    It’s time to get hip to the lights out way.”
    LIGHTS OUT! Poke, poke, poke your eyes out.
    LIGHTS OUT! Grab a pen in your hand and poke your eyes out.

    If you poke too far you reach a part of your brain.
    A fork in your mind will drive you insane.
    Don’t worry much, just let it rip.
    Today your eyeballs to the lights out trip.
    LIGHTS OUT! Poke, poke, poke….

    Much catchier though less political than “They Saved Hitler’s Cock.” Maybe someone can send Lou Dobbs their greatest hits CD.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Image by MomSense (5/10.25)

Recent Comments

  • Lyrebird on PSA: What To Say To ICE Agents (May 20, 2025 @ 10:34pm)
  • Adam L Silverman on War for Ukraine Day 1,181: More Drone Swarms in the Small Hours Before Dawn (May 20, 2025 @ 10:33pm)
  • Adam L Silverman on War for Ukraine Day 1,181: More Drone Swarms in the Small Hours Before Dawn (May 20, 2025 @ 10:33pm)
  • Jay on War for Ukraine Day 1,181: More Drone Swarms in the Small Hours Before Dawn (May 20, 2025 @ 10:31pm)
  • schrodingers_cat on PSA: What To Say To ICE Agents (May 20, 2025 @ 10:27pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!