LJWorld.com weblogs Loyal Opposition
Posted
by George Lippencott
September 20, 2009 at 2:42 p.m.
Slavery
An article in today’s paper remembers our city’s efforts in eliminating slavery. I think it is wonderful that we want to pat ourselves on the back for our role We did indeed invest over 600,000 lives and untold treasure in not getting there in the nineteenth century. We invested a lot more treasure and more lives in finally eliminating the more egregious element of slavery in the twentieth.
Now we have a new set of slaves that we seemingly ignore. I am speaking of our undocumented workers, who are little more than slaves. They serve at the pleasure of their employers. They take what they are given. They are exploited. If they complain, they are ratted out and sent home. Are they any less slaves because they are not “owned”?
Is the cost of our vegetables worth this travesty? Who really wins and looses if we normalize their situation. Some would have us believe that the costs of everything would increase. Certainly, the costs to the employers of currently undocumented workers would increase if they had to compete in the marketplace for labor. I am not sure the monetary costs of eliminating this practice would really affect the rest of us significantly. From a moral standpoint, the costs of this practice are appalling. I cannot comprehend why we have not acted sooner.
Could it be that demanding “cheep” health care for ourselves has allowed us to overlook our moral obligation?
and 16 others
Top ads RSS
- Research Assistant The High Throughput Screening Lab seeks a research ...
- Accountant, A/P Budget & General Operations
- Drivers CCI is Now Hiring Qualified, Professional Drivers For Local/Regional ...
- InBound-FunBound! Do you have the gift of gab? This is ...
- NAVY RESERVE Serve part-time. No military exp needed. Paid training ...
- School board cooling on consolidation plan February 14, 2012 · 12 comments
- Shrinking paper February 15, 2012 · 18 comments
- Owner of former Yellow House Store files lawsuit against KU Police Department, detective February 15, 2012 · 38 comments
- Brownback administration supports bill that critics say could invalidate Lawrence anti-discrimination ordinance February 14, 2012 · 96 comments
- Property owner claims in lawsuit Overbrook man cut $50,000 worth of trees for firewood February 14, 2012 · 46 comments
- Statehouse Live: "Rubber stamp" incident over abortion bill generates more comment February 14, 2012 · 45 comments
- City puts plans for west Lawrence recreation center on hold February 14, 2012 · 26 comments
- On the street: What would you ask for On the Street? February 15, 2012 · 41 comments
- Sound Off: Is the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce a dues-paying member of the Kansas Chamber of Commerc February 14, 2012 · 14 comments
- Blog: What Is The Matter With Liberal Kansans? February 13, 2012 · 57 comments
- Whirlwind week earns Jeff Withey national award February 15, 2012
- Football legend Gale Sayers leaves Kansas Athletics post February 15, 2012
- Property owner claims in lawsuit Overbrook man cut $50,000 worth of trees for firewood February 14, 2012
- Big 12 releases KU football schedule February 15, 2012
- Town Talk: Minsky's to open in downtown Lawrence; renderings for 31st and Iowa apartments; East Lawrence coffee house up for approval February 14, 2012
- City puts plans for west Lawrence recreation center on hold February 14, 2012
- FSHS girls frustrated by SMNW in uncharacteristic 57-44 loss February 15, 2012
- Brownback administration supports bill that critics say could invalidate Lawrence anti-discrimination ordinance February 14, 2012
- Toughened up, Jeff Withey ‘fabulous’ February 14, 2012
- Predictable end February 15, 2012
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…
Did you mean to say "cheep" health care in that we are too "chicken" to go after it?
"Certainly, the costs to the employers of currently undocumented workers would increase if they had to compete in the marketplace for labor. I am not sure the monetary costs of eliminating this practice would really affect the rest of us significantly."
With the economy the way it now stands, perhaps we best send the illegal aliens packing so some of the rest of us can get those slave labor positions. I think about any job(s) that are available will start looking mighty good to a lot of unemployed people. Especially those working among fruits and veggies.....maybe they can eat something while they are working. Working for 'peanuts' isn't so bad when you're hungry, George.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Do you actually know any of these undocumented workers George or are you just assuming that they'd rather watch their families starve to death in Mexico than work in the US?
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
So slavery is OK because it helps third world economies???
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…
No, I didn't proof properly!
Once they are legal they will probably no longer be as cheap - competition will settle the issue. It will be hard to justify a visa exception if there are natives available to do the work. No it just kind of happens with the implicit acceptance of our government.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
Good points. Let me add another. The involuntary flooding of our country with cheap labor exacts a physical toll as well. The beauty and splendor of our land is being rapidly and steadily spoiled by the hordes of job competitors our citizens do not deserve. In a land where adult unemployment consistently hovers in the 15-20% range, it is a crime that our so called "representatives" continue to do the bidding of the Chamber of Commerce. Large majorities of Americans of both parties want illegal immigration stemmed, but politicians, funded by the corporations who benefit from cheap labor, refuse to act on the will of the people.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
George, you don't know any of these people do you? You have no idea what you're talking about, you are just making assumptions about things you don't know. You have a severe case of paternalism. You aren't their daddy, they are grown-ups who know more about what they're doing than you do.
llama726 (anonymous) says…
Yeah, Liberty, I've met illegal immigrants. Businesses love to hire 'em to save all that green and yes, they use the little they make to help their families. You're dodging George's question. Do you say that it's okay to essentially enslave these people because their country's economies are doing poorly? Businesses here entice illegal labor to increase their profit margins and they abuse these workers' rights. You think it's defensible?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
llama, they're not slaves. They're not little kids. You aren't their daddy, they know what they're doing.
llama726 (anonymous) says…
I don't think I need you to tell me if they're my children or not, Liberty, and I'd appreciate you answering the question. Is it acceptable for businesses to abuse these individuals?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
llama, again, they aren't your children. They are grown people. They don't need you to be their stand-in daddy to worry about whether their boss is being a meanie to them. You need to think about them like they are adults who made a conscious decision to do what they are doing and not helpless children who are getting "abused" by those evil, nasty businesses.
Kawatchi (anonymous) says…
If only these "slaves" had the option of going back home...
llama726 (anonymous) says…
"llama, again, they aren't your children."
Liberty, again, I don't need you to tell me who my children are. I'm pretty sure I've been aware of any time I've engaged in donating my DNA toward creating another person, thank you very much.
"They are grown people. They don't need you to be their stand-in daddy to worry about whether their boss is being a meanie to them."
Your answer is evident then. A corporation or business may exercise whatever human rights violations they wish so long as they are doing so to an undocumented immigrant worker in their employ. Bravo!
"You need to think about them like they are adults who made a conscious decision to do what they are doing and not helpless children who are getting “abused” by those evil, nasty businesses."
I don't view them as children. I view them as people, probably moreso than you do since I've actually met and talked with them- people with a very misrepresented voice, people without the ability to defend themselves from those who would prey upon their desires to support their families. It's not like undocumented workers enter the country to become billionaires. It doesn't happen. Let's just be honest.
I've known people who have employed illegal immigrants. They don't want a solution to the problem. If they could employ white folks for $2 - $4 an hour without having to give any benefits or cover any on-the-job accidents, well, they'd do that too. Mistreatment of illegal immigrants is still mistreatment of human beings, and it's still wrong, even if they do choose to come here to try to give their family a better life back home.
Businesses need to be severely punished for hiring illegal workers, but they should also be punished for the fact that they abuse these individuals more than you'd know. Forcing them to work double shifts, not paying overtime, telling them they will be deported if they seek medical treatment and reveal how they were injured on the job, etc. Yes, people may do this despite the risks, but let's worry about the problem, which is that businesses in our country won't stop hiring them until they have proper motivation. They won't have proper motivation until it's completely ineffective to employ even one illegal immigrant due to the penalties that would come from doing so.
llama726 (anonymous) says…
And let's not sit here and defend them essentially enslaving people or abusing what should be recognized as human rights. Come on, Liberty.
Kawatchi (anonymous) says…
Sorry, but many slaves would find this comparison insulting. These people risk their lives, and break numerous laws to get here. While I would gladly turn in anyone who hires them, the "slaves" seem quite eager to come here and work, even if it means disrespecting national borders and laws.
llama726 (anonymous) says…
Kawatchi, do you have a family? If I told you you had a good chance of getting through a border to go make enough money to feed your kids, would you do it, or would you not be willing to take the chance to help your family?
As far as turning them in goes, so what? They just wait until the heat is off and hire them back most of the time.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
llama, you are the person trying to violate their human rights. They have willingly decided to seek employment in the conditions and the wages that are available to them and you wish to deny them freedom to contact and freedom to seek employment. You don't view them as people but as children. I respect them as equal adults who don't need or want me to meddle with their private affairs.
"probably moreso than you do since I've actually met and talked with them"
I've worked in several restaurants where the cooks were undocumented Mexican immigrants, I've lived next to them as a neighbor, given rides to them as a friend, met their families and learned their histories.
Your idea of punishing businesses who hire them is tantamount to taking food out of their childrens' mouths. You are unthinking and cruelly so. You need to examine your severe case of paternalism and lack of respect for these people.
They are not your children.
ralphralph (anonymous) says…
A group or class of people who are not expected to follow the law, and who are not afforded protection of law, are not free and equal. The reference to slavery is spot on.
llama726 (anonymous) says…
Liberty, you seem to excel at repeating yourself without any backing. You do not know me. You know nothing about me, yet you presume several things about my personality. I am unthinking? Hardly so. Then again, logic and sanity are not things I've come to expect from the few interactions I've had with you on this board.
Liberty_One, you are not the father of the corporations you defend. You have no reason to sit there and act like their rights are more important than an actual human being's rights.
Kawatchi (anonymous) says…
I remember when I was a slave. I raked leaves for this lady down the street. It took me 3 hours, and she paid me $10. Far below minimum wage. Know what I did? I didn't go back there and work for her again. I went home instead. Of course, if I were a slave, she could have forced me to stay against my will.
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
I do know some of them. I haven't lived in pristine Lawrence all my life.
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
Some of you seem to be arguing that it is just fine to exploit those who have little because they fight to get something. That argument is morally bankrupt.
llama726 (anonymous) says…
George, I think you're spot on.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
llama, I've said it time and again but you are just ignoring the thrust of my argument. You think you know what's best for these people--better than they themselves. No one is holding a gun to their head to force them to come here. They are not stupid children, they know what is in store for them. Because they are adults and can decide for themselves this is what they are choosing to do. They are not slaves, they are freely deciding their own lives. Because they are not stupid children they are doing what is in their best interests. You want to interfere and thus contravene a decision they made and thus this interference would be against their interests. The ONLY way you could justify such intervention is if you thought you were smarter than them and knew what was best for them. Hence I repeat over and over, they are not your children, quit being paternalistic.
was_freashpowder2 (Alexander Neighbors) says…
they are not slaves they are Volunteers
llama726 (anonymous) says…
Liberty... You can repeat something a thousand times, it doesn't mean you have the slightest clue about what you're saying. Your argument basically makes the case for there being no regulation whatsoever of businesses. No minimum wage, no benefits, no limit to working hours, no limit to child labor, etc. You can't solve any problems with one rigid and inflexible worldview. I don't purport to know what is best for them, but you tell me if it's "best" for someone to have their hand mutilated in a printing press and then be told that if they tell anyone how they were injured, they'll be forced out of their only source of income, arrested, jailed, and deported.
At best, you're too idealistic in your economic views. At worst, you're morally bankrupt. Either way, your point isn't lost on me. I clearly understand that you think these people make a choice to be abused and mistreated. To an extent, yes, they subject themselves to it. I guess that means we shouldn't try to protect people? Your argument is based on the idea that it's socially acceptable to mistreat people. To you, it is socially acceptable to mistreat someone, as long as they are a migrant worker. However, it is not acceptable for the government to impose regulations on corporations. Why is it that an individual has fewer rights than a corporation?
To me, there's no excuse. If a company decides to hire migrant workers, they deserve full punishment not only for breaking the law and hiring them, but for mistreating them and abusing them. And no, not all employers mistreat illegal immigrants. Just most of them.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
"I am speaking of our undocumented workers, who are little more than slaves."
For the love ...............
This may be one of the dumbest 'subjects' and comment strings in some time. Slavery?! The people to whom you're referring risk their lives, imprisonment, travel hundreds/thousands of miles often on foot, and even PAY to get here........whoops......I mean to become "slaves". They're free to come and go as they please, live a better quality of life here and improve their families' quality of life back home, and however 'meager' their wages are here they are generally ten times more than they could make at home, IF there was any work at home in the first place.
Their wages are low? Huh. The irony of that line of thinking is humorous. We're not paying the invaders enough.
Here's a novel thought: how 'bout they enter the country through the proper channels and become an actual tax-paying-on-the-books-member of our society and then you fight for their legally achieved rights.
This is a "travesty", George? The travesty is that the invasion hasn't been culled, much less addressed by our elected jackasses. But you think the travesty is that they're not being paid enough for invading our country and living here illegally, driving hospitals in California into bankruptcy not to mention the state (though the latter is not all on illegals), and becoming the largest contributor to the prison system over the last decade.
Swell.
Just curious, but you do realize that field workers constitute only a fraction of the "slaves" that have run willingly into the arms of their "slaveholders", right? Millions in construction, janitorial services, food service, etc., just makin' sure this monumentally moronic crusade is all inclusive, this isn't just a fruit picker fetish.
Whatever the case, attempting to compare this particular segment of our society to slaves is intellectually offensive. I've read your stuff before, George, you're usually better than this.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
llama, it's not about what I find socially acceptable. It's none of my business if someone wants to work those jobs. It's none of my business what god you pray to or what your sexual orientation is.
"To an extent, yes, they subject themselves to it."
You don't understand the import of your own statement here. If they do so then that's because the alternative is worse. You say I'm morally bankrupt, but you are the one who will subject them to the alternative. That's why I say you are unthinking. You wish to help someone's suffering but your solution will only make it worse.
" I don't purport to know what is best for them,"
Yes, you do. The women's movement fought against paternalistic views like yours. Employers wouldn't hire women for dangerous jobs, but that decision should be on the woman because she is not a child and make that decision for herself. If these jobs are dangerous that's a decision the worker has to make for himself. It's not your job as daddy to the world to make that decision.
llama726 (anonymous) says…
So, wait. Now you're accusing me of being sexist? we have labor laws genius! If you break those labor laws to hire an illegal immigrant, you should be punished. and not just for hiring an illegal immigrant, but also for the fact that you are not treating them properly.
There's a great big difference between women wanting to have access to equal employment opportunities and businesses manipulating the economic situation of Latin America to gain extremely cheap labor. The women's movement also FIGHTS for equal pay, which isn't granted by the businesses you so worship here in the US. So, stop spoon feeding me and everyone else this garbage about what I'm subjecting them to. Give the illegal immigrants already in the states a path to citizenship, lay the pain on the companies who exploit undocumented / illegal workers, and make trade fair.
Won't happen. But it's a solution, while you seem to deny that abusing a group of workers is a problem and can't seem to debate the ideas - you only want to put words in my mouth.
llama726 (anonymous) says…
"It's none of my business if someone wants to work those jobs. It's none of my business what god you pray to or what your sexual orientation is. "
It's none of your business if a job doesn't pay women equally either, right? It's none of your business if a job employs child labor, right? If the women / children need those jobs, then that's their issue, right? The only difference is these PEOPLE are not here through legal means. Yet, you're okay with businesses being forced to employ women and men equally, but not okay with them being forced to adhere to certain humane standards if the persons involved are illegal immigrants. Therefore, it's clear you don't regard them as people in the same sense you regard women as people. Interesting.
llama726 (anonymous) says…
And finally, as far as jaywalker goes, I think you missed the point and are too hung up on the term "slavery," with regard to how you interpret that word. It's obvious that undocumented workers in all fields are more likely to be abused, mistreated, and threatened. People like Liberty would have you believe that they made a choice. Fine. They made a choice I'd make too if I had kids to feed and a family to look after. They're certainly not "invaders," I daresay a vast majority of them have no interest in taking over your country.
regardless, people in this country should not simply accept that these people are mistreated every day. It's dehumanizing.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
Give it up, Liberty. You need rational people with which to have a reasonable discourse. Your unequal opponents include one suffering from what I like to call Lawrence-itis and the other is...well, porch. Time better spent gettin' some shut-eye.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
"Those working in sweatshops can just get up and leave for better jobs?"
No, that's my point. The sweatshop is better than their alternative. If you eliminate their job then they'll have to go to the alternative.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
jay, I know. It's all emotion. These people don't realize that's their ideas will hurt the very people they are trying to help. But they call me immoral because I examine policy on a deeper level...
llama726 (anonymous) says…
Jay and Liberty, delude yourselves more. Jaywalker calls them "the invaders," so obviously he's so much more concerned than I about their well being. Liberty, why not give them a path to citizenship, rather than hounding them when our society encourages illegal immigrants to come here?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
LOL, porch, so you can't respond to the substance of my post and return to your old trick of lying? Porch, it was YOU who said the tenth amendment didn't exist in 1973:
"the United States Supreme Court had already ruled on the subject before you were born, rendering your Tenth Amendment argument defeated.”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/aug...
News flash porch, the tenth amendment was ratified in 1791, long before 1973.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
"The argument that slavery is better than “the alternative” is contradictory to your claim that people have a choice in obtaining better employment. "
No, it's not. People choose the best alternative. Just because their alternatives aren't great doesn't make them slaves.
Katara (anonymous) says…
jaywalker (Anonymous) says…
For the love ……………
This may be one of the dumbest 'subjects' and comment strings in some time. Slavery?! The people to whom you're referring risk their lives, imprisonment, travel hundreds/thousands of miles often on foot, and even PAY to get here……..whoops……I mean to become “slaves”. They're free to come and go as they please, live a better quality of life here and improve their families' quality of life back home, and however 'meager' their wages are here they are generally ten times more than they could make at home, IF there was any work at home in the first place.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are incorrect. There are many that are actually slaves and the majority of them are women and children. They risked all to get here. Most of them paid to get here and were forced into slavery to pay off the debt.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/ja...
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/re...
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch, as long as you dishonestly miscontrue what I said then I'll continue to miscontrue what you said. You know I was not claiming the tenth amendment wasn't in effect in 1973, yet you continue to repeat that lie over and over. I was being sarcastic. You are like the eight-year-old who says:
Porch: You're a girl!
Me: Yeah, sure, I'm a girl.
Porch: You admitted it! You said you're a girl! Hey everybody, Liberty says he's a girl! (laughter)
You are the ultimate Garfinkeler
Kawatchi (anonymous) says…
Go to a large metro area with lots of illegal aliens. Let's say Houston. Pull up to a gas station in a pickup truck. In many cases, you will have dozens of "slaves" fighting to hop into the truck and get work for the day. To compare their plight to those who were snatched from their home lands, brought here in chains, auctioned off, forced to work and beaten regularly is insulting. Shame on you.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
Ha! Welcome to the club, Liberty! You wouldn't believe how many times porch pulls the same crappage with me and then pulls it out of the archives time and again like he actually said something in the past. What a maroon.
"I would be remiss if I did not point out how honest your argument can be. Here's an example:"
You are forever 'remiss'.
A fool is a fool is a fool. Thanks for being consistent, porch. You got nothing now, you had nothing then, but all you can do is misrepresent and lie in hopes noone notices, and of things that have no place in the current discussion. Porch_person must be a synonym for pathetic_peon.
llama,
Actually I hold considerable empathy for these people. As I've said in the past, though they are also at fault in all this I can't really blame them for their actions. If I was in their shoes I'm fairly certain I'd be doing whatever it took to get here and get work too. No, I blame Washington for allowing this all to perpetuate. But when you have 15 to 20 million people in a country illegally, just my opinion, but 'invaders' seems pretty accurate.
"You are incorrect. There are many that are actually slaves and the majority of them are women and children. They risked all to get here. Most of them paid to get here and were forced into slavery to pay off the debt."
Interesting articles, Katara, but they don't make me 'incorrect'. I never said there were no instances of slavery in America, and your vague contention that "There are many.." is misleading as well. The topic here is concerning our latino illegal population, one that numbers in the ten to twenty million range. Your links talk of around 50k that endure such barbacy, and most of them seem to come from Russia or eastern blocs, Thailand, China, etc. We're also talking about Americans employing illegals while the segment you reference is enslaved by their own particular countrymen.
I appreciate what you're saying and the subject, it just doesn't quite fit here.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
"I call it “saving other bloggers at LJ World time and effort attempting to discuss anything with someone as “intellectually challenged” / dishonest as you”."
Now that's funny. Porch has copied and pasted the exact line that's been directed at him countless times.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch, again with the deliberate dishonesty. Why do you think I added "haha" after that and called it lunacy? You are the ultimate Garfinkeler.
tbaker (anonymous) says…
I have trouble with George's analogy. Unlike the slaves, illegal aliens came here of their own free will. In many cases they paid someone to get them across our border. No one is keeping them here either. Such was clearly not the case with the American slaves George compares them to.
That said, George is correct to point out that illegal aliens are often exploited and forced to live a miserable existence. No one deserves to be treated so, regardless of their citizenship status. It is also equally correct to point out they don't have to put up with it if they don't want to. So long as they chose to be here illegally, they also chose the marginalized life that comes with continuing to break our laws and remaining here illegally. This by no means justifies their mistreatment, but it doesn't appear these inequities they suffer are much of a deterrent to them breaking our laws and sneaking into the country in the first place and staying once they get here.
Though often exploited and marginalized, whatever hardship must be endured to be an illegal alien in the US is far better than the life they left in their home country. There are tens of millions of examples which offer clear testament to that fact.
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
Well, I see some of you did not do well in kindergarten. Play nice.
Another set of "free market"arguments. Free market to an extreme led to novels like "Babbit" and "Grapes of Wrath" and many others. Business should not be able to exploit people - any people. Labor should have greater value than it currently has in our society.
If you normalize undocumented workers they will be more expensive. If that leads to fewer being hired than more native born can be hired. In my world you do not get to hire a bunch of people from elsewhere unless you can demonstrate there are no natives to perform the work.
I know more government regulation. Too bad! If business behaved itself regulation would not be needed.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
George, in a free society no one can exploit another. Every contract, be it for the sale of goods or for employment, is made by two willing parties who both believe the agreement is in their best interests--otherwise they would not have agreed to it.
You are creating a phantom of exploitation in order to justify increasing government's power. What's worse is that your ideas would actually hurt the people you are claiming are exploited. If you really cared for them you would not hinder them. This has been the immigrant experience for millions of Americans--the first generation has to take the crap jobs that others don't want, but the second and third generation climb the economic ladder to prosperity.
tbaker (anonymous) says…
Liberty nailed it. Bravo!
I'm all for reforming the immigration system. A dear friend from Iraq just got his citizenship after waiting 9 years. Thats about the average wait time, and that is not only ridiculous given our technical capability, it's a huge contributing factor to the epidemic of illegal aliens.
In an age when I can get a half-million-dollar home loan on-line in about 30 minutes, we shouldn't have to wait a decade before we can provide citizenship to an immigrant. Besides, we need legal immigration to sustain our culture. Our domestic birth rate is too low.
bad_dog (anonymous) says…
"George, in a free society no one can exploit another. Every contract, be it for the sale of goods or for employment, is made by two willing parties who both believe the agreement is in their best interests—otherwise they would not have agreed to it."
Yeah, it would be perfect-just like the Wild, Wild West. Issues like fraud, coercion and overreaching never enter the picture in Liberty's pristine nirvana. Even if they did, absolute justice would be swiftly rendered, reigning in the neer-do-wells without expense or inconvenience to those who thought they were oppressed or otherwise wronged.
Heck who needs *things* like the Statute of Frauds, tort law, anti-trust legislation or Article 2 of the U.C.C.? After all, they just get in the way of freedom of contract. We'll just *wing* it. Freedom of contract will protect us all!
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
bad_dog you have it completely backwards. Laws against fraud and violence protect the freedom of a free society. That you would list tort law with anti-trust legislation shows you don't understand my position and thus your post is one big straw-man argument.
Kawatchi (anonymous) says…
Typical nanny state rationale:
Person sees opportunity in the US
Person comes to US illegally
Person gets job, likes it enough to stay
Person sends money home, keeps job in US
Other people hear about how well the guy that left for the US is doing.
Other people come to the US illegally
They are happy with the arrangement
We are supposed to feel bad about it.
tbaker (anonymous) says…
Bad Dog - you're absolutely right. There has been, is now, and always will be fraud, coercion, corporate maleficence, etc. Please consider that upon reasonable examination, one can pretty easily conclude that if more laws and government regulation were the answer, we would have wiped out the inequities you mention generations ago. As it is, the considerable amount of law we already have on the books hasn't adequately addressed it.
Although I think it's unfair to characterize Liberty's post as one that championed some form of anarchy. I would offer that a truly free market, while it will never be the "pristine nirvana" you refer to, is nonetheless the best way to address these problems. There is a considerable body of evidence to support this claim. Such a market, working within a framework of laws designed to promote it - not stifle it - is the best answer.
You mention the "freedom" of contracts? They do protect us all! Private party contracts work - thats why they are so commonplace. In this instance, the law works with the market place by providing civil penalties for those who breach contracts. I'm not saying the Statute of Frauds, tort law, anti-trust legislation or Article 2 of the U.C.C. are bad things. I disagree with government when it interferes with the market place, not when it facilitates it's proper function.
"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others.”
– Ayn Rand
tbaker (anonymous) says…
Dear Bad Dog - heres an example of harmful government intervention in the free market.
You're an airline, and you spend $200 million on a new Boeing 787 dream liner. This capitol investment is a 100% tax deductible business expense. Unfortunately, the government doesn't want you witting-off $200 million in just one tax year. My, what a "cost" in lost tax revenue that would be. They make you depreciate the new plane on a schedule over seven years. They let you write it off "a little at a time." Too bad "a little at a time" is not how Boeing sells planes. In the mean time, the income you earn operating that plane is taxed at 38% corporate tax rate - the 2nd highest in the world.
You're a Wall Street investment guru and you've spotted a hot new stock. Trouble is, you don't have the money to buy-into this deal on the ground floor, so you get a loan. You use borrowed money for the investment. 100% of the interest you pay on this loan is tax deductible THIS year (not depreciated) and any profit you make from the sale of the hot stock is taxed at the capitol gains rate - a modest 15% when compared to the corporate rate.
Both examples put new capitol investment into a company. Why then would the government treat them so differently?
Ans: Compared to the airlines, Wall Street investment firms spend an order of magnitude more on political campaigns - of both parties I might add.
Newell_Post (anonymous) says…
I know several people who came here illegally, but eventually became legal. The conditions they left in Central America were more akin to slavery than the conditions they found here working in "sweatshops." That's why they stayed here and didn't go home.
I'm not defending illegal immigration or those who exploit it. Illegals should be deported and anyone here who knowingly exploits them should be punished. I just think the analogy to slavery is way over the top.
bad_dog (anonymous) says…
"Laws against fraud and violence protect the freedom of a free society."
Really? Thanks for the *heads up*. While laws/regs can't prevent all forms of fraud or abuse, they do prevent some bad actors from carrying out their otherwise unpoliced activities. Those laws also have a *sentinel* effect that, hopefully prevents and/or minimizes the number of occurrences, while providing remedies for violations.
"That you would list tort law with anti-trust legislation shows you don't understand my position and thus your post is one big straw-man argument."
Well I don't want to distract you with too many examples on the continuum. I understand your position-just don't agree with it. That you continue to rail against regulatory supervision and prefer to embrace a position of such laissez-faire extremism indicates you like dooming yourself to repeat history. As long as human nature remains what it is, certain persons will always try to take advantage of others.
tbaker (anonymous) says…
You assume too much dog. I don't rail against regulatory supervision, nor do I embrace laissez-faire extremism. Nothing I said could be fairly characterized that way. Case in point: I'm a part-time pilot among other things. I love the FAA. Commercial and civil aviation simply could not exist (at least as we know it) without this kind of single, united, regulatory force. I've flown in many countries who have a "wild west" airspace system. It doesn't work. There is no free-market substitute for this. Not even close.
That said, when it comes to commerce, the buying and selling of goods and services, I simply believe the preponderance of the evidence supports the assertion that when not interfered with by the federal government, the free market TENDS to be far more effective at correcting itself than any body of law ever could. When government "regulation" plays favorites - my example being but one of countless examples - then that interference harms us all and just exacerbates the problem.
You are absolutely correct about human nature though. The question is, which approach to curbing this bad behavior is most effective? Government regulation or free market behavior? Either way, someone gets screwed to begin with, and then something motivates people to behave in the future. Which "something" tends to be more effective? The threat of going out of business, or the threat of a visit from law enforcement?
llama726 (anonymous) says…
The profit motive cannot solve every problem. The government cannot solve every problem. If you feel that the profit motive can solve most / all problems, you're insane. If you think the government should operate our businesses, you're insane. We need to meet in the middle. We are a state. We should not allow people to "freely" be employed at whatever wage they will accept because it leads to exploitation, Liberty, and it damages our own economy. We should regulate businesses and again, we can work to help the economy of our neighbors to the south by making trade fair.
llama726 (anonymous) says…
And no, I don't favor a much larger government. For one, I'd like to see our federal budget trimmed a little more. Wasting money on conventional military preparation is silly. We need to get smarter about what we do and a lot of that means not starting two wars that never end. How would our deficit look if we had only gone to Afghanistan?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
llama, far from damaging our economy it strengthens it. Increased wages mean nothing if the cost of living increases faster. The only way to an affluent society is through higher productivity. Repeating over and over that it's exploitation isn't a counter to the fact that millions of people want to come here and be "exploited." The arrangement is mutally beneficial otherwise both parties wouldn't agree to it. You cannot get around that simple truth. You wish to interfere on someone's behalf against their wishes all because YOU think they are being exploited. How is it that you think you know better than they? Is your ego really that huge?
bad_dog (anonymous) says…
tbaker-my comments arise from numerous posts wherein Liberty espouses the wisdom and virtues of freedom of contract and the free market as if neither was ever a problem in theory or practice. I prefer to have as few rules and interferences as possible, but in their absence dilution and encroachment will began and ultimately become the pervasive rule rather than the exception. I prefer to have what I believe is a more pragmatic, realist, proactive and experience-based approach.
To Liberty it's all about just letting the parties to a contract have at it while ignoring the reality of the examples of abuses we are inundated with daily. We'll just fix it all later. Why not be proactive and attempt to legislate/regulate certain industries effectively? While I agree a regulated environment does not inherently connote efficiency, fairness or swift action against wrongdoers, neither does it infer governmental overreaching, insider laxity or protectionism. Even where there's a problem with the comprehensiveness or implementation of regulations, IMHO the public is still better served having protections in place than trying to *fix-it* in some ad-hoc, ill-defined fashion.
As for your utilization of tax policy as an example of hamful governmental intervention, there is too little equity in the design or implementation of the tax code. I'm not an accountant so I can't comment on the bottom-line impact of the two corporate examples you provide above, but (aside from your reference to political contributions) I suspect there may be an answer/rationale other than it just doesn't make sense to you or I on its face. I'd love to hear an explanation from someone better versed on the topic. I'm not happy with greed whether presented by private or governmental sources.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
bad_dog (Anonymous) says…
"That you continue to rail against regulatory supervision and prefer to embrace a position of such laissez-faire extremism indicates you like dooming yourself to repeat history."
Doom? How is rapidly increasing wealth and the general standard of living considered doom? History has shown time and again that freedom produces such results. It is only when the government uses violence to interfere in the market that we regress. Just look at the differences between the depression of 1921 compared to the depression of 1929. In one case the government reduces its interference in the market; unemployment quickly dropped to 2.6% and a huge boom in productivity and standard of living followed. In the other case the government increased inference and the depression lasted for 16 years.
Is this the history that you are so afraid of repeating?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
bad_dog (Anonymous) says…
"Why not be proactive and attempt to legislate/regulate certain industries effectively?"
The common law is proactive. It proscribes rules that are to be followed. There are gray areas where the exact definition of what is a reasonable amount of care needs to be fleshed out, but how is that any different from a court deciphering a legislative rule? Legislation certainly isn't proactive--most often it is in response to some event: Megan's law isn't called that because the sponser of the law was named Megan.
Bossa_Nova (anonymous) says…
we must be a great country if being a modern day "slave" as George puts it, is better than being back home in central america, mexico, etc.
tbaker (anonymous) says…
Hey Dog - I tend to agree with most of your first paragraph, and will not quibble further.
As for the taxes - fair disclosure - I am a huge fan of the FairTax. As it is, the US income tax code is the principal weapon the politicians use (regardless of party) to reward their friends and punish their enemies. It's 77,000 pages long and growing. It cost Americans billions of dollars last year to comply with it. Before the 16th amendment, it was unconstitutional for the federal government to take money from individual citizens. It should be again. If it ever passes, it will be the largest transfer of power from the government back to the people since the founding of the country.
See: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServe...
From the website:
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.
The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 296) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.
The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.
The FairTax:
* Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
* Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
* Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
* Allows American products to compete fairly
* Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
* Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
* Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
* Brings trillions of US-held dollars in off-shore investments back to (what will be) the friendliest tax environment on earth.
* Abolishes the IRS
We offer a library of information throughout this Web site about the features and benefits of the FairTax plan. Please explore!
llama726 (anonymous) says…
Why are conditions in Latin America so bad? Think about it, and get back to me. Hint: It might have to do with what they export and how much we pay for it.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
"The common law is proactive. It proscribes rules that are to be followed."
"Legislation certainly isn't proactive—most often it is in response to some event."
After the first (and inevitably insufficient) round of common law is proscribed, how do they know which following laws to create if not as responses to some events?
Or are we assuming that they got it right the first time?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
"how do they know which following laws to create if not as responses to some events?"
They (judges) don't know. The wonderful part about common law is that new laws aren't issued as edicts set in stone--they develop over time over different jurisdictions. What works is kept, what doesn't is overruled. In addition what works in Kansas may not work as well in California and vica versa--common law allows for variations from state to state to adapt to differing conditions. Common law is much more efficient, flexible, and adaptable than legislation. Who would you rather have writing the law: lobbyists or impartial judges?
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
"Who would you rather have writing the law: lobbyists or impartial judges?"
I would answer that the only reason lobbyists spend their time romancing legislators is because that's where the law gets created. Once that changed to judges, where do you think the lobbyists would go next? And how long will the judges remain "impartial?" You seem to believe that judges will be more impervious to corruption or special interests than legislators, which I find rather laughable, to tell you the truth. Locality of the type you seem to advocate would likely exacerbate the problem of corruption, not lessen it.
For the rest, that sounds pretty much reactive to me, not proactive. It seems the real point to it, then, is the lack of universality or standardization?
puddleglum (anonymous) says…
good back 'n forth...like a good tennis game
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
jonas, you say it's laughable but provide no reasoning for support.
1. Most of the time judges are appointed and not elected--no campaigning and thus no fundraising.
2. Lack of impartiality is a cause to demand a judge recuse herself.
3. Judges' decisions are subject to review on appeal.
4. While judges decide the law, juries decide the facts.
5. Judges have no power over the purse.
6. Stare decisis.
7. Judges cannot actively seek to make new laws, they can only decide the cases before them.
etc.
Your bald assertion is what is laughable.
llama726 (anonymous) says…
Liberty, I'd enjoy our conversations more if you held an ounce of respect for other viewpoints. It's precisely that attitude which turns so many people off from interest in politics to begin with.
bad_dog (anonymous) says…
"Doom? How is rapidly increasing wealth and the general standard of living considered doom?"
The rapidly increasing wealth you refer to is rapidly moving to the upper 1% of the population and everything I hear is that the standard of living for most is decreasing not improving.
"The common law is proactive. It proscribes rules that are to be followed." No more so than legislation. I would argue that all law whether of common or statutory origin is reactive, however, it's design and enforcement are certainly proactive ways to deal with an existing problem. Virtually every attempt at a solution began with the identification of a problem.
"There are gray areas where the exact definition of what is a reasonable amount of care needs to be fleshed out..." That sounds amazingly similar to Pres. Obama's comment on the status of health care legislation two weeks ago. Regulations and statutes provide definitiveness and structure and describes the penalties for breaches.
As for your comments to Jonas
!) Who do you believe appoints judges? Publicly *elected* officials who did campaign and raise funds. The resulting appointments can reflect their merits or be an illustration of their lack thereof.
2) Lack of impartiality is the basis for a MOTION to recuse-not a *demand*. They are not granted just because you or a client believe they should be.
3) Judges decisions are subject to appellate review whether originating in common-law, statute or regs.
4) It depends on whether you are trying your case to the bench or before a jury. Judges may also *decide the facts* to some extent by determining what evidence even gets before the jury. A juror can't decide what they don't get to contemplate.
5) Not sure what you're getting at here. Speeding violations are a very good way for a judge to decide the facts, the law and exert their power over your purse.
6) Stare decisis = precedent. Neither are immutable.
7) You appear to believe there is a high degree of judicial activism spawning rogue laws at every opportunity. I don't. While some judges overreach their authority, they are generally reigned in at the appellate levels.
DarkJader (anonymous) says…
Someone please clarify for me. Were not American slaves, while in their homelands, hunted, captured, tortured, forced to travel to America in subhuman conditions, bought, sold, raped, owned and made not to leave their masters for generations?
Cheap labor conceded, how is that experience remotely analogous to someone who comes here voluntarily and illegally in pursuit of a better life?
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
L1: Bad dog had some good points, so I'll avoid rephrasing and merely add my own, except for #1 which is so appallingly obvious that I can't help but point it out again.
1. Most of the time judges are appointed and not elected—no campaigning and thus no fundraising.
As bad dog posted above, if you don't see the potential problem in this there's a serious problem. I'm having great difficulty seeing how you can say with a straight face that having them outside the influence of the public is somehow an asset if they are the primary ruling force in a society.
2. Lack of impartiality is a cause to demand a judge recuse herself.
Only if aware of the impartiality, and of course only effective if there is an alternative.
5. Judges have no power over the purse.
Under this system that we have now. You have no idea how it would play out under your own. Regardless, to suggest that the ability to actually grant money is the only effective way corruption works is false.
6. Stare decisis.
That could be as easily a problem as not, depending on the original decision that was made.
7. Judges cannot actively seek to make new laws, they can only decide the cases before them.
So, if the legislators didn't create it, and the judges didn't create it, and the people didn't create it (apparently) where does this "common law" come from in the beginning?
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
Oh, and for "offering no support" I think we both know (well, if you can see past your ideological blindness, that is) that I can generally offer support for any and every assertion that I seriously make. But to be honest, your little fairy tale world is built on so many unquestioned assumptions and what I would call fallacies in thought, that it's pretty much pointless for me to cover every eventuality in an original post. Much better to be, shall we say, reactive rather than proactive.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Oh my goodness, you guys went point by point as if each one was an ultimate proof that judges are impartial. The idea is that judges are more impartial than legislators. So of course sometimes judges are also triers of fact--but that a jury often is is a check on their power and a source of impartiality. That judges are appointed by politicians certainly has an effect, but that doesn't cancel out that they are not elected and don't have to campaign themselves, nor are they answerable to the politician who appointed them in that they can't be fired just because they aren't corrupt. Stare decisis is not immutable, but it is, again, another check on judges' power and thus another reason to think that corruption is not a major problem. That a judge's decision is subject to appellate review whether it is a common law issue or a statutory issue has nothing to do with what we are talking about! How does that mean judges aren't impartial? This is just you being argumentative for the saking of arguing.
This is best one of all:
"2) Lack of impartiality is the basis for a MOTION to recuse-not a *demand*. They are not granted just because you or a client believe they should be."
What is this, form pleading? If I use a word that in the common vernacular means the same thing my argument is dismissed? Sorry charlie, but this isn't a rebuttal but is like being the grammar police. It's not a DEMAND it's a motion! Call the waaambulance already!
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
"5. Judges have no power over the purse.
Under this system that we have now. You have no idea how it would play out under your own."
Yes, I do. All I ask is to follow the Constitution the way we used to. We know exactly how it will play out.
"7. Judges cannot actively seek to make new laws, they can only decide the cases before them.
So, if the legislators didn't create it, and the judges didn't create it, and the people didn't create it (apparently) where does this “common law” come from in the beginning?"
They can only decide the cases before.
" your little fairy tale world is built on so many unquestioned assumptions and what I would call fallacies in thought"
Nope. Based entirely in reality. Your ignorance of it doesn't make it a fairy tale world.
lctchr1 (anonymous) says…
#
21 September 2009
at 3:31 p.m.
#996,023
Suggest removal
Permalink
Anonymous
DarkJader (Anonymous) says…
DarkJader. . .
"Someone please clarify for me. Were not American slaves, while in their homelands, hunted, captured, tortured, forced to travel to America in subhuman conditions, bought, sold, raped, owned and made not to leave their masters for generations?
Cheap labor conceded, how is that experience remotely analogous to someone who comes here voluntarily and illegally in pursuit of a better life?"
Completely agree. They made a choice to come here, to improve the lives of their loved ones back home, and for the chance that they may build a better life for their children here. Comparing illegal immigrants, who chose to come here and are very happy to work, to slavery that existed centuries ago, is insulting to those who actually suffered thru that dark period in our history.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
L1: "All I ask is to follow the Constitution the way we used to. We know exactly how it will play out."
Indeed we do! It becomes the system that we have now.
(which you, apparently, hate)
I guess we're done. Feel free to point out again how I am ignorant of reality. hahaha
Katara (anonymous) says…
jaywalker (Anonymous) says…
Interesting articles, Katara, but they don't make me 'incorrect'. I never said there were no instances of slavery in America, and your vague contention that “There are many..” is misleading as well. The topic here is concerning our latino illegal population, one that numbers in the ten to twenty million range. Your links talk of around 50k that endure such barbacy, and most of them seem to come from Russia or eastern blocs, Thailand, China, etc. We're also talking about Americans employing illegals while the segment you reference is enslaved by their own particular countrymen.
I appreciate what you're saying and the subject, it just doesn't quite fit here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The topic is undocumented workers. There is no mention in the writer's article that is specific to Latino population so I'm not sure why you assume the topic is about that. There are many undocumented workers of all nationalities here.
"Kenn Morris, director of the University of California San Diego Cross Border Innovation program at San Diego, points out that other one-third of undocumented immigrants are Asians, Canadians and Europeans, most of whom came into the country legally, but overstayed their visas. “So if sanctions are imposed, this should be done equally,” he says, noting that nobody appears concerned about the non-Latinos here illegally."
http://retailtrafficmag.com/retailing...
It doesn't matter if the people involved are harmed by their countrymen in the process or not. It is not their countrymen that are employing them here. It is American nationals that are and it is in America that it is happening.
Migrant worker or day laborer are not the only types of undocumented workers. There are undocumented workers in the garment industry. There are undocumented workers in food processing. There are undocumented workers forced into the sex slave trade. There are undocumented workers in retail stores.
"In contrast to the typical image of an illegal immigrant — paid in cash, working under the table for small-scale labor contractors on a California farm or a suburban construction site — a majority now work for mainstream companies, not fly-by-night operators, and are hired and paid like any other American worker."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/bus...
Just sayin' there are a lot of assumptions going on in this thread and if we are going to address illegal immigration, then we need to address all areas of it.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
"There is no mention in the writer's article that is specific to Latino population so I'm not sure why you assume the topic is about that."
I guess it's the reference to vegetables in the blog, the fact that the majority of migrant farm workers are hispanic, and the fact that the rest of the string referenced noone other than hispanic illegals.
"Migrant worker or day laborer are not the only types of undocumented workers"
Of which I'm fully aware and have already referenced in my initial post.
"It doesn't matter if the people involved are harmed by their countrymen in the process or not. It's not their countrymen who are employing them here."
It does matter if it's their countrymen who are enslaving them in this country. I've read and seen many instances of people being enslaved in America, just not by Americans. It may happen, but in the links you provided the inference is to these poor people being forced into servitude by their own people.
No offense, Katara, what you initiallly brought into play had nothing to do with this particular conversation. And now with this last post you seem to want to widen your original contentions. Do you wanna talk about the very small percentage of illegals who are enslaved in this country by their own people, or do you wanna talk about what the rest of us have been talking about?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
"Indeed we do! It becomes the system that we have now."
That's impossible. It wasn't until parts of the Constitution were rewritten in cases like Wickard v. Filburn that micro-management of the economy became possible through regulation. Perhaps you don't know, but federal regulation started because industries lobbied for it. They tried forming cartels so they could restrict output and raise prices, but because the economy was free, new firms would enter the market and compete or those in the cartel kept secretly undercutting each other and continued to compete. Their solution was to impose cartels through the government (regulation). The first thing the Interstate Commerce Commission did was to outlaw secret price cutting. Of course this compulsory cartel system was sold to the public as a curbing evil business groups and being in the public interest. People like you believe it. People like me know better.
altarego (anonymous) says…
Ya'll exploit slave labor every time you shop at Walmart. I suppose it is more moral to support sweatshops if they are on foreign soil.
The mean old corporate greed that uses bottom dollar labor is seeded by your personal greed in spending money you don't have on useless garbage you don't need at the lowest price you can find.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
"That's impossible."
Clearly not. You described how it happened in reasonable detail. You simply assume that for some reason it would be different if it was tried again. I heard someone say that Einstein defined stupidity by doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. But I don't think you're stupid, just blinded by your ideology.
"People like you believe it."
Pardon, but you don't have a clue what I believe. It's not going to be something you can piece together by me questioning the ideologues on this site (yourself included).
Katara (anonymous) says…
jaywalker (Anonymous) says…
I guess it's the reference to vegetables in the blog, the fact that the majority of migrant farm workers are hispanic, and the fact that the rest of the string referenced noone other than hispanic illegals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like I said, there are a lot of assumptions going on this thread and by telling me the thread is about Latino/Hispanic undocumented workers you fed into that assumption. You also seem to imply (as others here have as well) that migrant worker = illegals, which is not the case.
It is nice that you agree that other industries have undocumented workers. We both agree there is a problem. So why are we limiting the discussion to just Latino/Hispanic undocumented workers? Especially since the author of the blog was speaking pretty generally about undocumented workers?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jaywalker (Anonymous) says…
It does matter if it's their countrymen who are enslaving them in this country. I've read and seen many instances of people being enslaved in America, just not by Americans. It may happen, but in the links you provided the inference is to these poor people being forced into servitude by their own people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not really. How do you think their own countrymen are even able to do this in our country without the cooperation of some Americans? Should not those Americans who are helping enslave be responsible too? And if it is non-citizens that are enslaving them, they are using our country to do so and we have an obligation to stop it. It is a bit like arguing that you shouldn't be arrested for drug manufacturing because even though your house is being used for it, you aren't the one actually making the drug.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jaywalker (Anonymous) says…
No offense, Katara, what you initiallly brought into play had nothing to do with this particular conversation. And now with this last post you seem to want to widen your original contentions. Do you wanna talk about the very small percentage of illegals who are enslaved in this country by their own people, or do you wanna talk about what the rest of us have been talking about?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
None taken, but what I brought up has plenty to do with this particular conversation. You posted that undocumented workers are free to come and go as they pleased and I pointed out situations where they are not and posted some links about the sex slave trade as an example.
I'm not sure why you want to pooh-pooh the amount of people affected. It is okay to be held as a slave in the U.S. because you believe there is a small percentage of them?
I find it difficult to believe that is your thinking but your posting is leading me to the conclusion that it shouldn't be talked about because you don't feel the numbers are significant enough.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Oh, because what you believe is a big secret hmm?
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
Based on your many inaccurate portayals of what I believe to date, then yes, apparently it is.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
But what I Actually meant was that in general the ideologues see me questioning them and then assume that I hold beliefs opposite or opposed to their own in some significant fashion. Just like you do.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
Katara,
Again, no offense, honestly, but I have no desire to open the scope of this conversation up to the full extent you seem to desire. I'm w/ ya on the human trafficking aspect; it's one of the most despicable stories I hear about these days and never ceases to amaze me and disturb me. But what you're discussing is human trafficking which is slavery, and what the rest of this string referenced was hispanic illegals considered as 'slaves' due to their working conditions and low pay. That's not an assumption, that's what has transpired here. If George was referencing anyone else, I imagine he would have cleared that up in his response posts.
In any case, I have no contention w/ your opinion on human trafficking. All efforts should be exhausted to eliminate such evil in our borders.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
So, jaywalker, I couldn't interest you in a sale? I've got a nice. . . . ripe. . . . teenager or two with strong backs and good biddable personalities. I'm sure that I can find one that suits your needs, business or personal, just fine.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
So you're immune from this apparantly awful disease of being an ideologue hmm?
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
Ripe, jonas? Interesting sales technique. Thanks but no, though, I've got all the concu....help I can handle.
bad_dog (anonymous) says…
"Oh my goodness, you guys went point by point as if each one was an ultimate proof that judges are impartial."
No, the issue you raised was who would you rather have writing the law: lobbyists or impartial judges? Given you were providing examples of what you believed was judicial impartiality, I merely indicated on a point-by-point basis, the holes, incorrect assumptions/conclusions and weaknesses in several of the topics you raised. While you claim I am merely being argumentative (and I, of course, disagree ;-)), I can't even provide that description for the words/phrases you string consecutively together. You post summary conclusions with nary a molecule of analysis or support-just your conclusions and "say sos". I and others try to point out the glaring weaknesses in your position, yet you persist, saying "Nope", or "You just don't get it". Well, you're correct on the latter count. Try utilizing the IRAC method-it could be helpful to you.
As for your feedback regarding the propriety of utillizing the term *Motion* rather *demand*, as a law student I would hope that using appropriate vernacular/terms of art would have some significance to you. If you are so concerned with reader comprehension, don't you believe using the term *demand* might connote some inherent entitlement to your implicit remedy, i.e. recusal by virtue of its insistence? I seriously doubt the definition of *Motion* is over the heads of the laypersons reading this blog. I pointed it out merely to illustrate that it's not something you receive because you perceive and demand it and therefore, it somehow becomes illustrative of self-policing judicial impartiality.
Assuming you proceed in your career, you will discover many of the things you are taught in law school are conceptual in nature and often are not embraced as idealistically, pragmatically or completely as you might otherwise believe.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
I love how people take my status as a student as an opportunity to lecture me in what they believe the finer points of being an attorney are. Sorry if I have little regard for anonymous internet posters' opinions regarding how I should and should not comport myself in my professional career. You can take your smugly given advice and shove it.
bad_dog (anonymous) says…
The very fact you consider my feedback to be *lectures* and *smugly given advice* says much more about you and your limitations then the source or merits of the *advice* given. The *finer points* of being an attorney include understanding the subject matter, analytical skills and persuasive speaking/arguing. Seldom do you exhibit any of these skills, much less assemble them collectively. As I see it, you have an ethical obligation to transfer your argument to someone competent in the subject matter.
We used to have an expression back in the day to describe a technically competent albeit otherwise challenged law student; "That person is the exact reason they used to require on-site interviews prior to admission." I can see some things haven't changed.
You have much to learn grasshopper, but I'll let your professors and the bar examination committee provide further insight, provided you get that far. For the record, I as well have little regard for many of your opinions, but I suspect you already got the drift.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
No bad_dog, I'm just smart enough to know the difference between genuine advice and a smug attempt to belitltle somebody. You've done nothing but that the entire time and now that you've been called out on it your uncreative response is to stay the course, "grasshopper." I'll follow suit--you can take your advice and shove it. It's worth as much as I paid for it.
bad_dog (anonymous) says…
"No bad_dog, I'm just smart enough to know the difference between genuine advice and a smug attempt to belitltle somebody."
Is that *just smart enough* as in meeting a minimum incremental intelligence standard? You apparently were *just smart enough* to get into law school as well. Again, technically competent, the rest, perhaps not so much.
Gotta go. Got some *demands*, I mean Motions to file.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
porch, you're like an annoying dog yipping while people talk. Don't be so jealous when I give attention to others. I'll talk to you too when it's your turn. I
altarego (anonymous) says…
Y'all need to get a room. For the unwashed masses out here, there is a lot of interesting rhetorical potential here. Unfortunately, it is laced with little junior high school cheerleader type put downs.
God help me if I ever have to deal with you people in TRW.
Unless, of course, it's at the new Hooters out on the SLT for some wangs and beer.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Porch:
“the United States Supreme Court had already ruled on the subject before you were born, rendering your Tenth Amendment argument defeated.”
What was my tenth amendment argument you are referring to here?