Comments on: Work bill would create new ID database
Senate takes up draft legislation creating massive Homeland Security database that would say "yes" or "no" to an employee's eligibility to work.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Hungry fail whale eats up Twitter lists
November 30, 2009 2:03 PM PST
- Big marketing budget drives Moto Droid sales
November 30, 2009 1:51 PM PST
- Microsoft investigating 'black screen of death'
November 30, 2009 1:37 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
If you can't fix it, blow it up and start over again.
Employers have been doing that for years, what is the problem?
Why create a new system, a new monster, that makes things more complicated, and could infringe on the rights of Americans?
Take the H-1B foreign visa issue, for example... not enough people know both sides of the issue
- how it is being used accelerate the offshoring of IT,
- how it has in the past depressed and flattened wages in the IT industry,
- how it has caused thousands of American IT workers to be laid off (there is no way to get an accurate count because the labor deaprtment does not track information closely by job type),
- AND scariest of all, the lessons learned from this "experiment" will make it even easier and faster to offshore multitudes of high skill service sector jobs in the future...
- after hearing about how easy it is to create a program to swing votes in the elections, recently, and that no one would no unless they could read the source code - it is a secure decision to offshore all our IT? What about accounting? My tax return, apparently is accessible in India now..... I don't know the whole story in that one, but its not a good feeling. We know about big companies and cutting costs and how safeguards are not always so safe. (woops, sorry to get off topic a little, but it proves my point)
Try clicking on the link. I'm not sure how you do it in your part of the country but here in Kansas, we don't use Mexicans to harvest. We have a golly-gee-whiz machine called a combine. I'm pretty sure we won't starve. Without the illegals, we'd have to hire (gasp) legal workers. Oh, no, heaven forbid!!
In response to various posts that were at the end of their tree:
1. The Constitution is about many things but for the most part it can be considered a document that defines and limits the authority of the Federal government. Reference all the passages which state that all rights not explicitly granted to the Federal government are retained by either the States or the people.
2. The Constitution is not a static document. It can be modified and parts can be and have been repealed.
3. The Constitution can only be amended by a super majority vote in Congress. The Supreme Court is given the responsibility to interpret the law and is very much prejudiced in favor of legal precedents.
4. The Bill of Rights is about individual rights, yes. They don't protect aliens but we have signed contracts with other countries which obligate us to treat their citizens according to law. Those who enter the country illegally may or may not have certain protections. I'm no expert on such laws. Perhaps someone can provide clarification there.
With these points in mind, many portions of the Constitution need to meet the needs of the moment. The country is entitled to draft people into military service but they are very limited in respect to what they can do regarding private property.
In times of war, a lot of the Constitution is resoundingly trashed and it's to the shame of the country that they allow such things to happen. None the less, the needs of survival to protect our way of life often require compromise. I will respect such compromise if it is done publicly and with popular approval and is only done with a provision that such acts will be reviewed regularly and offered as a ballot initiative for repeal by straight popular vote, no super majority.
It's to the shame of the people that they let such things happen such as draft deferment for college students and other people of privilege. It's unfair to target very young people as draftees while older people who profit from a war economy let the children of their neighbors die.
I can think of a zillion other issues but I'm afraid that I'm going to be a hypocrite and say that it's not my battle. I can't trust my fellow citizens to do anything more than vote with their wallets so my only point today is that civil rights ALL matter or none of them matter.
Technology is part of our world. Our first citizens wrote the Constitution long before modern technology so it is up to us to be ready to make whatever changes need to be made to preserve the intent of the Constitution.
With that in mind, I have no problem with C/Net offering a forum for debate in a community that has a high percentage of technically inclined people as long as they do not censor anyone who has reasonably informed opinions and who respects the opinions of others. Even technically ignorant people should be welcome but they can't expect to use rhetorical issues to monopolize the discussion.
With that in mind, I am perfectly willing to challenge C/Net authority if I see prejudicial censorship but the earlier accusations that C/Net was violating anyones rights just don't hold water for me. If C/Net attempts to censor one person for a slight infraction while allowing highly abusive behavior from another, I'll make it personal and to heck with their rules.
If it is important to anyone to be completely confrontational towards C/Net, I will not act to shut them down but I have no obligation to defend "free speech". Just accept it if you perceive them to be prejudiced and don't use them as a source for presenting your own political views.
Finally, many times I'll make an obviously unsupported accusation such as claiming that all politicians are crooks. Those comments are opinions and I'll accept such comments from anyone as long as they aren't rude about shutting down anyone else based on opinion.
If anyone wants to post information and have it accepted as FACT, they should always post some sort of credible link that supports their claim. Linking to bloggers who are not recognized professionals doesn't count.
This isn't anything new. Any mainstream forum has rules to this effect. It's perfectly within the rights of the publishing authors to ignore anyone, particularly if they seem to be hecklers so if you want a dialog, don't start off the conversation with unsupported accusations.
Perhaps C/Net can clarify their policies on Libel but otherwise, I think we should stick to the topic at hand and only diverge on civil rights if it's pertinent to the topic.
You can't have it both ways. If they have no rights or protections then the law doesn't apply to them.
Just because I am familiar with the history of the southwest US over the past 180 years doesn't make me a liberal or anything else. People like Suyts have absolutely no academic or intellectual ability. They are reduced to parroting bumper sticker sayings.
People like Suyts are just trying to hide their racism under a wrapper of pseudo-patriotism.
The US has a long history of actively encouraging Mexicans to come across the border at need, and then turn around and stab them in the back. Again you can't have it both ways.
I do wish that the Mexican government would do more to stop it because it is hurting them economically. For starters quite a bit of US currency is being sent across the border. This devalues Mexican currency and makes it hard to spend wisely in real investment. Secondly, many of the people coming across about kids that dropped out of school. That obviously, is not good for the future of any country. It would be in the best interests of the Mexican government to police the border better and provide better wages while encouraging real investment.
You can't blame the Mexicans for coming over. Many of them can work here for two years and save enough to live decently in Mexico. Not that many really want to stay here, and why should they since even natural born Chicanos are treated like foreigners.
If you think undocumented workers pose a threat to anyone in the US, you are living in a fantasy world. If an American "loses his job" to a fairly uneducated undocumented worker, then he deserves to be unemployed.
A better solution then totalitarian databases that will create more problems then it will solve is to actually enforce existing laws and to strictly enforce wage laws. If employers are forced to pay minimum wage or better to undocumented workers then the incentive to do so is gone.
No law or system will work without enforcement. There is currently next to no enforcement today, new laws will do nothing but make it harder for everyone.
So now I'm a racist according to you. My brother-inlaw, Jose, will be very sad to hear it. (He is a "legal" emigrant.) You stated "The US has a long history of actively encouraging Mexicans to come across the border at need, and then turn around and stab them in the back." Apparently, your ok with this because in one of your prior posts your argued that we need them. That is an elitist's point of view. An elitist is nothing more than a racist with an unwarrented ego. What, are you afraid of doing an honest days work? You believe you are above sweating for a living? Who is racist?
I don't recall reading anything off of a bumpersticker and then posting here on Cnet. Perhaps you can point out one of my posts that has a bumpersticker quote before you make unsupported claims. As far as my academic or intellectual ability, I've completed my requirements for a degree two weeks ago. Not bad for a 42 y/o. Again, another unsupportable claim of yours is referenced.
The problem with you, and the people like you, is apparently you've had no real-life experience to draw upon when it comes to matters such as these. It seems you can only parrot what some sociology prof. has told you. Very sad that you can't think for yourself.
No, I don't blame the illegals for wanting to be here, were I in their same shoes, I probably would be doing what they are doing. That does not mean that we shouldn't secure our borders or try to protect the "legal" employee of this nation. When you state "If an American "loses his job" to a fairly uneducated undocumented worker, then he deserves to be unemployed.", is becomes obvious that you have no idea of what your babbling about. (Goes back to real-life experiences.)
If you had been watching the news lately, you would know that INS has been very busy in recent days. Their efforts are for naught, because deported or not, these illegals can find their way back and be employed by someone else or in the case of a "real-life expierience" of mine, by the same company using a different name and employment number. We even had an employee ask us which green card number we would like. He had three.
There is no list, so there is no way we can hold the companies accountable for their illegal practices. How would the companies know who to hire and who not to hire? How would you enforce the laws without the list? You've never answered that question. Well, you did call me some more names. I take the name calling as an acknowlegement that you have no answer.
You stated "If you think undocumented workers pose a threat to anyone in the US, you are living in a fantasy world.", yet offer no substance for that view. I, on the other hand, pointed to several instances how the undocumented worker does indeed harm the American worker and the general economy. You have never responded to these points. (Unless you want to count the name-calling bs your so good at.) To review, no substantive response + unsupported name calling = an argument that isn't strong enough to be considered weak. Please go spew your crap somewhere else and let people with inteligent things to say participate in these discussions.
These immigrants basically come in two categories:
UNSKILLED worker or LIMTED SKILL [uneducated] worker. These account for the janitorial positions, construction and other LOW LEVEL position jobs these people take. MOST of these workers attack low level jobs that american don't want. Have YOU ever picked apples? Or construction, where the do the lower jobs of hammering and not operating heavy equipment.
Higher level jobs are at risk from people outside of the country or LEGAL aliens in the country.
These are basically our slaves for the decades to come, like the Irish, the Blacks, the Italians, and Germans too.
In a country built on immigrants' backs we certainly never appreciate the group that's building and cleaning the nation WHEN there are building a cleaning it!
- Unintended consequences of denying work
- by jefframse May 24, 2007 4:45 PM PDT
- If we deny the ability of a person to work and feed themselves we are denying them perhaps the most basic of human rights. There are better ways to achieve legal immigration status for all people in our country than to deny some people the opportunity for employment.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Nice try!
- by JadedGreg May 24, 2007 6:53 PM PDT
- I don't want to discourage you but your argument is either forced or naive.
- Like this
-
- That was a wonderful disertation
- by suyts May 24, 2007 7:34 PM PDT
- of a fantasy. You are correct on all points, except your premise. You speak as if there is no choice for these people except to come to the U.S. We, the people, threw off the shackles of an oppressive government. They can also. It does take a considerable sacrifice, but is achievable even today. We see it time and again.
- Like this
-
Showing 2 of 2 pages (150 Comments)We may be thinking of the good of the whole group in the classical republican sense when we propose stringent laws against a minority group or minority activity such as illegal immigrants working to support themselves. In the debated immigration legislation the proposal of denying self supporting employment flies in the face of personal encumbrances and the right to life.
On encumbrances I refer to the idea that a person may feel strongly that a core purpose in life is to work and earn their own way. To comprehensively deny this possibility offends their personal preference on the 'good life'. They are encumbered by their belief in supporting themselves by working. We should respect this personal belief (which I feel is also a right) in spite of the intention to do good for the whole group by denying them opportunity to work. The simple fact is that their working does not hurt our country. The whole can respect the dignity of the minority in this case without receiving harm.
Looking at the big picture it is appropriate to allow immigrant children to attend school, receive medical care, etc?. America already provides these positive and negative rights. It is also appropriate to allow people the ability to survive. They deserve the negative right to be allowed to support themselves legally as they may. (I suppose it would be a harder sell to propose the positive right of employment to illegal immigrants. See. ) We would be inconsistent if we denied some people the possibility to work for their own support no matter what their position is in society.
Many states disallow taxes on food because of the idea that taxing the ability to survive is not in the best interest of the whole, nor in accordance with the individual right to support our own life.
Thinking of perverse or unintended consequences, it seems to me that illegal activity would increase. I feel that it is reasonable to assume that a hungry and cold person will do something to ameliorate that condition. See. Folks will steal to eat and sleep which seems reasonable in light of the alternatives. Folks will be more vulnerable to the criminal elements that seek to dominate lives. I can only guess that the criminals hope this law will pass so that they will receive a whole new segment of the population to prey upon freely.
We don?t want to people to become acclimated to illegal activity, unethical thinking, or twisting the laws (as some lawyers seem to be accustomed). Laws, rules, guidelines, regulations etc? should be transparent, reasonable, and understandable by those who must abide by them. Let the rules be in the interests of the whole without diminishing the rights of the individual. We would do better to create circumstances that people can abide. Acclimate ourselves to obeying the laws instead of stepping on them. It is better to become conditioned to obey rather than to disobey. People will work whether or not it is legal to do so. There are ways to make it legal and good for the whole that an individual can work. We?ll get folks doing what comes natural and who are conditioned to obeying the laws for greater peace and order in our country.
Folks keep coming across the border at all costs. With or without the proposed legislation to deny employment to those not on the proposed government databases people are going to come here as they always have. Just last year one case involved two college students who gave two potential illegal immigrants water and took them to the hospital. Their lives were preserved; the two students were arrested and convicted of aiding in illegal immigration. It took 9 months to have that charge reversed only after a broad campaign and much time and effort expended (wasted). The law would have left the two die in the desert. The two rescuers essentially were convicted for saving lives. The two potential immigrants risked their lives to come here. In fact, somebody dies crossing that border on average every single day of the year. The proposed immigration law denying employment if a persons? name is not on a national government database will most likely be strictly adhered to at all costs by many Americans. Adhering to laws without reasonable flexibility leads to abhorrent results as in the above mentioned case of the two lives that were saved. Flexibility allows for real world situations and respect for the dignity of the individual. Inflexibility is destructive to the individual and in the long run to the whole also.
Circumstances in the world are such that people will always come here at all costs. Perhaps the denial of employment will reduce the overall number, but the overall motivations for people to leave hopeless circumstances to come to America for hopefully a better life overpowers most deterrents against coming here. Dealing with the causes of immigration on a micro and macro level is constructive. We can look after the good of the whole without destroying the rights to survival and the realities of personal encumbrances. We can respect all people in our country, hemisphere, and world. We are all human beings and we should respect all life as equally sacred. De Tocqueville speaks of our ?self interest rightly understood? as looking out for the good of the whole. Thomas Jefferson and others recognized that doing good is the root cause of happiness and that the majority of people will recognize and legislate according to this realization. The good will therefore bear sway in a self governing democracy and the organized interests will fall by the wayside. In the long run I say that there is no alternative to doing good and respecting all people in America.
Thank you for considering this perspective.
Plain and simple, illegal aliens live in fear of losing what they have. With the current situation, even their employers can yank the leash and if they don't heal, call the cops and send them packing.
It's not fair to any worker who doesn't have sufficient leverage to control their own employment, to leave them to live a public lie and a private life of coercion and fear.
I owe a certain amount of loyalty to my fellow Americans who've worked and died for my freedoms. I owe nothing to Mexicans. I'm willing to pay more for produce but I'm not willing to fix their messes. They need to be better organized, more financially responsible and willing to hurt people who threaten them.
American unions are garbage, little more than student governments pretending to be power brokers. Power is whatever it takes to get your way. If that means burning down the homes of congressmen because that is the only thing that gets them to listen, then that is what power is.
On the other hand, if they EVER threaten me or mine for political leverage with no concern for my well being, they can expect to see their houses burned with their kids still inside, so they better get over their fantasies of being Jedi Knights or something and grow the H#ll up quickly!
A few more adults in this country and this debate should be over quickly.
The illegals are not here by accident but rather by the encouragement of their own country. This nation has offered to allow legal immigration to this land. All one has to do, is ask, and obey the laws of this land. Those that have chosen not to do so, flaunts our naivety. They laugh at our goodwill. No one proposes to deny them work, only to deny them work "here" if they "choose" not to obey our laws if they "choose" to come here. Further, it has been shown, throughout history, that the interest of one people is not necessarily the interest of another. The whole globalist theory will not be achieved in the world as it is today. As it is now, America first, America last, and America in between. The remaining can go to the rest.