ALCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS | A resolution by Alameda County Supervisor Richard Valle discouraging the county sheriff from honoring request from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain undocumented residents in the county passed, 3-1, Tuesday afternoon despite the hearing being called a “farce” by fellow Supervisor Scott Haggerty.
The issue of Secure Communities, a federal program that has raised controversy since its enactment in 2008 for allegedly targeting undocumented residents and deporting them, in some cases, for violating something as simple, as minor traffic violations. Valle, who represents Alameda County’s heavily Hispanic District 2, says the issue is creating fear among his constituents.
“They have families. They have families in our schools. They work in our hotel and our restaurants. They work as care-givers,” said Valle. “Some of them are my neighbors and friends and a lot of them have fear of Secure Communities because they don’t want to get swooped up in that net.”
Valle said he met with Alameda County Sheriff Gregory Ahern on Monday morning and found the meeting positive. “I think the one point the sheriff and I saw eye-to-eye was the issue that the Secure Communities, as it is currently used in this country and Alameda County, has been victimizing a lot of people.” Valle added many are accused of minor offenses, non-serious crimes and “do not present a clear danger to our society.”
Under Secure Communities, an offshoot of the Patriot Act, local law enforcement agency are required to offer fingerprints to a regional data repository, which then can be later accessed by other agencies. However, critics say the program is being used to target undocumented residents. When unable to produce proper identification, some undocumented residents are detained and many times not charged for any crimes. However, deportation proceeding are often set in motion, which can split up undocumented parents from their American-born children. It also has the unintended effect, critics say, of discouraging undocumented residents who are witnesses or victims of crimes from coming forward to authorities for fear of being detained.
The resolution passed Tuesday is symbolic, Valle noted, and does not preclude the sheriff from continuing to honor ICE detainers. Instead, it sends a message to the state and federal authorities that Secure Communities is not working as it was intended five years ago, Valle said. San Francisco County, Santa Clara County and Berkeley have previously passed similar resolution against ICE detainers and Secure Communities.
Berkeley Council member Jesse Arreguin called Secure Communities a social justice issue. “Our brothers and sisters are living in the shadows due to a broken immigration policy,” he said. “SComm divides families, creates fear in our undocumented community and does not improve public safety.”
Supervisor Scott Haggerty, who said he also met with Ahern on Monday, registered the only dissenting vote against Valle’s resolution. Supervisor Nate Miley was absent from Tuesday’s meeting.
Haggerty took great offense to what he label “Little League politics” coming from Valle’s office over the resolution. Haggerty claimed he never saw the resolution’s text and for that reason, was prepared to ask for Tuesday’s agenda item to be continued to its next meeting. He later claimed Valle’s office told him they were prepared to issue a press release Tuesday blaming Haggerty for asking for a continuance of the resolution.
“I have to tell you I have never been subject to such Little League politics in all my life,” Haggerty said. “It is a very sad day when members of this very board play internal politics and games to keep their own personal agenda moving forward. It is reckless and it is disrespectful.”
Ultimately, Haggerty chose not to ask the board to continue the item, but proceeded to unleash a sometimes dramatic, often times discombobulated 10-minute speech, at one point stating rhetorically, “I probably have just as many undocumented friends as you do.”
“I am not anti-immigration,” said Haggerty. “I don’t care if you’re from Mexico, Bosnia, China, Africa, you want to be here? Why do you want to be here? The same reason why my family, when they immigrated from Ireland wanted to be here. We wanted the American Dream and I wanted to help each and every one of you get that, but I’m going to tell you, you don’t get it today! You get a piece of paper that is meaningless.”
ebcitizen.com 
I think this thread just passed its pull date.
Lets just call it DONE.
LikeLike
2:03—BOO HOO
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
LikeLike
At the end of the day you can huff and puff, but you're nothing but a bluff. I'll invest in tissue as you're going to make me a fortune.
LikeLike
Aqui Aqui
Excellente!
LikeLike
Anon 1:30-You Ultra Conservative Extremes are the truly PATHETIC ones! You still haven't answered questions or given any facts or DATA to show why the House will kill amnesty. I hope you do bet on the House because you will lose. Talk about not learning to read. Check out the polls, the Rep. leaders, the Rep. fundraisers, etc. They all say there will be amnesty. Start you crying and whining now you right winger. LOL
LikeLike
I vote for answer three. It's a no brainer!
LikeLike
You ultra liberal whores are truly pathetic. You don't like the solutions I've posed and don't read the answers to you questions. But hey, that's o.k. You have nothing to offer except what you do in Berkeley. Well, the rest of the country doesn't do Berkeley. We beat back your attempt to kill the death penalty, and we'll also make sure that there is no amnesty.
Too bad YOU don't have any solutions. Me, I'll bet on the House. I should probably invest in tissue, because after amnesty is killed, you're going to have a ton of tears to shed.
Finally, you may be American born, but you clearly have never learned to read. Take a course, or two, at your local community college. They're there for YOU.
LikeLike
Anon 11:26–I agree with your posts, but don't expect 8:34 to give you any meaningful data or answer a legitimate question. He hasn't so far and he's put forth NO solutions. He just dreams of the house stopping amnesty because he lives in La La land. In fact, he sounds a lot like Paul Vargas who ran for City Council in San Leandro and never came close to winning. What a loser he was!
Thanks for your posts and keep them coming.
LikeLike
8:34, A Hayashi supporter, right!
But lets get back to that nagging question.
You post all the signs in several languages, and yet a illiterate illegal immigrate, still comes across, unable to read.
Half way across, he trips a mine. Half his right leg is blown off and he is bleeding to death. 300 yards away at the guard tower, a American border patrol officer sees the explosion.
So the questions are.
1. this man, dying on USA soil, do you go pick him up?
2. After picking him up, do you take him to a American hospital and treat him?
3. Or do you just let him lie there and die, thus saving all that costly medical treatment?
Remember, you said, “At the end of the day, I've put forward solutions”…
Just wondering about that part of your solution.
A fair question on the above detail concerning the mine field and how you'd handle the situation described.
Come on now, don't avoid my question.
LikeLike
I can see that our 'friend,' 11:05, who predicted an overwhelming win by 'Supervisor' Mary Hayashi is back.
This kid just didn't get it then, nor now.
It's o.k. for you to be for open borders, despite the fact that they will never happen. You can also be an apologist to all the legal immigrants from all the countries by espousing amnesty. Just be HONEST.
At the end of the day I've put forward solutions. You, nil. Son, when you change the law, as you are so anxious to do here, everything is possible.
Step on a mine at your own peril. That's why the signs are posted in multiple languages. Remember, when you change or circumvent the laws, as you are so gung ho to do, anything is possible. You make it up as you go along. Following your lead, Einstein.
We do what's right not because it is easy or popular, but because it's right. Seems to me some fellow, Kennedy, said something along these lines. We all know he was full of it. Right?
LikeLike
Aqui! Aqui!
Excellente!!!
LikeLike
7:47 and 7:48, nice to see you answer your own posts.
I must say, your opinion is rock solid with over 1.8% of the American public. (you know, including your mining of the border.)
BTW, you never answered the question.
When one of the guys steps on the mine, and suffers life threatening wounds, where will you take him for treatment? Since the injury happened on US soil, you are responsible for his care.
Of course you do have one other option.
LikeLike
Aqui! Aqui!
Excellente!!!
LikeLike
3:13, Ah say boy, boy!
Still no answer for a permanent fix other than California Dreamin' Amnesty. Ah say, ah say, you are more pliable than a house of cards.
When the House kills your ever not so sweet amnesty, remember you heard it here. I'll promise to stop 'dremaing' when you give up whatever it is you're smoking. Bottom line is I have a solution and all you have is hot air.
LikeLike
Aqui! Aqui!
LikeLike
Good for you 2:19. Solid in your position.
Too bad you were sitting on the dock, when the ship has sailed.
You live in some make believe world
“This needs to be a permenent assignment; mine fields would be a critical deterrent, too.”
Good for you, you have the full backing of 1.8% of the American public, there, on the pier with you.
Again, the ship sailed about a year ago.
I'm sure there is one or two congressmen who agree with you about the mine field.
Write them, call them, email them.
Or you can just keep posting here. Wait long enough and someone else may pass by and agree with you… minefields and all your ideas.
Oh, one question, since the minefields will be on US soil, when a few “intruders” get their legs blown off, who will be responsible to go pick them up, and if alive, will you grant them hospital expenses? Or just send them, with parts, back across the border?
Just wondering about the details of this mine field. The associated costs and problems.. limbs and all that stuff.
Let us know about those pesky details.
LikeLike
Unless anyone is proposing getting rid of the Deportments component of ICE, then it has a job to do; its mission is clear. Amnesty would prevent that function from being fulfilled. After all, we're not going to say 'break the law, wait 27 years, and then you'll be rewarded.' There might be a FEW whore Republicans in the House that would go along with them, but not enough to see it pass there. Going down in the House big time.
Again, sorry jovenes, we don't have or do open borders. Not going to happen in this lifetime.
What's the answer you ask? Glad to oblige. The ONLY way to defend our borders, especially the south, is to assign a permanent mission to the military to guard it. Period. Need observation towers and maybe even a mine field. Too draconian you say? Don't want another third world you say? Well so far I haven't read any proposal as to how to enforce the borders. Barriers don't work. Not full proof. The ONLY deterrent is an armed presence from the military permanently situated from CA to Texas and beyond. This needs to be a permenent assignment; mine fields would be a critical deterrent, too. Sorry, friends. If you support a secure border then you know this is the only practical solution. If you don't, then you're for open borders and/or amnesty every decade or so. American public doesn't support open borders or repeated amnesty. 1986 was the amnesty to end all amnesties, and while I'm a Democrat, I thank the good lord for enough Republicans in the House to kill this thing. Then as the song goes, 'we can start all over again.'
Addendum: very glad I left my choice for president blank on the ballot. Would never vote for Romney and Barack Hobama proved how much of a shit he is by vetoing science in favor of his morality with the day after pill. Must be available to all, regardless of age. Science knows best. Period. Also, news flash here: he'll fasttrack Keystone so it will make your head spin. Barack Obama=B.O., which stands for Big Oil. Get it! Who needs Bush BO has got their own B.O. in the White House.
Just call them like I see 'em. Whores a plenty!
LikeLike
I don't know which is worse.
7:42 types who refuse to even compromise when clearly the landscape has shifted…
Or some of the others here, who respond to anyone who suggests changes to the Senate bill as being those of a racist, scab, white guy, non-union contractor, and on and on.
Some of the suggested changes that may be incorporated in the bill are often supported by 30 or more percent of Hispanics. Those not caught up in the need to pass any old thing in the name of solidarity.
Like Washington, to much of the discussion here and elsewhere trys to force reasonable people into one sided blind camps of “yes yes, followers”
Often those shouting the loudest don't even know the provisions of the bill.
As I always ask, after passage, are you willling to enforce this bill you favor.
Including detainment and deportation of all those who have arrived since January 1, 2012, whether stopped at a traffic stop or found working in a local business.
After passage, will you support those provisions being enforced?
Well?
Will it be OK for ICE agents to inspect businesses, or will you lable any future action such as that as “raids”… “breaking up families” and the like?
Well?
LikeLike
Anon 7:42–not a very intellectual discussion. Give some valid reasons for amnesty getting killed in the house. Wait, maybe you can't when the Republican leaders, Republican fundraisers, and even the Conservative house members all say there has to be amnesty. We all have opinions and wishes, but you are in a very small minority.
LikeLike
Amnesty will be killed by the House.
This is code for open borders. Dreamer? Once a whore, always a whore. We don't do that in America. Have a Dept. of Deportation? You bet, and we'll use it.
LikeLike
What a dreamer you are–it will include amnesty. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Silicon Valley leadership group, Tech and Innovation Companies, National, Regional, and Local Business groups, along with Labor, Rights Groups, and faith and religious leaders all support the compromise. All polls also support amnesty and the gang of 8 compromise bill. You must be delusional if you don't think amnesty will be included.
LikeLike
I agree with a comprehensive reform package that does not include amnesty but enforces deportations. Abide by our present laws and I'm on board.
LikeLike
1:18, I agree with you that a compromise package will pass, however there are some issues with parts of the Senate bill as put forth.
But we'll assume some bill passes with a few changes.
Now, the question is, after passage and the appropriate amount of time passes to set up enforcement, then at that time you will support full enforcement?
–Which will include that if individuals are found, who arrived here after January 1, 2012, they can be detained, processed, and deported, even though they have not committed any crime, but were just stopped for something as simple as a traffic stop.
–That any individual found working illegally will be detained, processed and eventually deported if they are working and arrived after January 1st, 2012.
Etc, etc.
So with passage of comprehensive immigration reform completed and a appropriate amount of time to set it up, then eventually YOU will agree to that type of enforcement, including enforcement at the workplace.
Just wanting to know, you'll support law enforcement when they implement the law and co-operate with ICE.
No complaint against the Alameda Co. Sheriff when he implements the law…after we pass the full reform package, right?
Or will you still be saying the Sheriff should NOT cooporate with ICE, after passage of a reform bill that the senate and house pass, and Obama signs.
Wondering about your future stance then.
LikeLike
Change is in the air–amnesty going down, bigtime!
LikeLike
And that's why the compromise immigration package will pass, because people are tired of the extremes, and are tired of people like 6:50 trying to blame all their problems on immigrants. Our society is better than that, and we are a better demographic nationally with immigrants. Change is in the air. I love it.
LikeLike
Nice to see the ability of those to so nicely discuss actual issues within the proposed immigration reform package rather than just ranting.
“You are a non-union racist scab”
“Most of you ultras and union whores believe in open borders”
Good stuff guys, you're really swaying public opinion.
Thankfully with the “top two” voting system, candidates won't always be catering to the extremes.
LikeLike
Sorry, little person. I'm not demonizing nor talking down to the at large, but specifically you.
When the House kills amnesty, and it will, it is perfectly o.k. with me if you move back to Canada. Little more ice up there to go with your cold mentality.
The AMERICAN public respects back of the line. No free ride in this country, sonny. You don't like the way we do business here, back to Canada with you.
By the way would love to be a racist–IN FAVOR OF ALL THE RACES! No need to put words in my mouth. I can do that just fine.
6:28–you just continue to stick your head further up your ass, where the sun don't shine!
LikeLike
Anon 4:09–I'm a declined to state who never supported NAFTA–Has nothing to do with immigration. You can be anti-union if you want to but the unions and the progressive Dems. were the only ones to fight against NAFTA and the other trade agreements which destroyed our middle class along with the trickle down Bush economic plan which brought the biggest recession in History to the United States not immigration. You are a non-union racist scab and that's probably unfair to scabs! P.S. The polls show the American public is strongly in favor of the bipartisan immigration reform. OMG–you're a Liar too–LOL I'm laughing at you not with you. You have to be a white male to have such strong prejudice. You probably would be happier in a right to work for less state in the South. What a whiner and crybaby. Join the 21st century.
LikeLike
Keep dreaming scab–and you are too stupid to see the reality of compromise.
LMFAO zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
LikeLike
Sorry, kids this is the BIG leagues, and you just don't get it. Just heard The PBS News Hour say that the House will never go for the Senate version. Fact is that while the Republicans are willing to do 'a li' bit of whoring,' the vast majority–I say again, majority, won't sign on to amnesty. 'Reform' means different things to different folks.
Most of you ultras and union whores believe in open borders, but the American public doesn't. You tell them about amnesty and they ask the plausible question: If my ancestors had to wait in the back of the line and take their turn, why should 12 million+ get special treatment? It reeks to high heaven. No. The American public supports–and thank G-d the House of Reps.–believe in rule of law.
My prediction is that this will implode, yet again, and we'll keep the status quo until amnesty is taken off the table once and for all. For the last 27 years the illegals have had a vacation from their home country. As Mr. Rorke used to say, “Your fantasy, she's just about over!” Once this fiasco killed once and for all, we need to reform citizenship and change the Constitution so that only nationalities who are here legally become citizens. Too many damn Canadians coming across the border! By the way, this Democrat never supported NAFTA. The U.S. Constitution was amended regarding naturalized citizenship. Never used to be as it is, which was changed for the benefit of former slaves. Now it's just a hell of an abuse by those pesky Canadians.
LikeLike
Since the leadership of the Senate and House control the conference, I agree there might be changes, but they will be very small indeed. I have friends who live in Maryland, that are political junkies, who tell me word has gone out to the Republican house members not to screw this up. They are the Republican operatives who control the purse strings, like Karl Rove, and they don't want the Republicans to lose the house. They need to win back the Hispanic vote that Bush received(45%). In the last election Romney only received 29% of the Hispanic vote.
LikeLike
True, a immigration bill will pass. However as it passes through the house, they will create their own version.
“Conference – A meeting between House and Senate members to reconcile differences between bills passed by their respective chambers of Congress. Once a compromise has been ironed out, a conference report is issued and voted on by the full House and Senate.”
The final version may have several changes.
The odds the Senate bill will pass unaltered is very small indeed.
LikeLike
Just who is going to vote against the bipartisan compromise? The moderate Reps. will support it, the Conservative Reps. like Paul Ryan have said they need to support it to stay relevant. Even Karl Rove an ultra-conservative supports it and he raises millions for the Reps. campaigns. So I ask again just who will oppose it? It won't even be close because a majority of Reps. nationwide support it. Try and read instead of listening to Rush Linbaugh. LMAO Aqui! Aqui!
LikeLike
Sticks and stones…the House will kill Amnesty!
Aqui! Aqui!
LikeLike
It doesn't matter–it's going to pass whether you like it or not–get it!
LikeLike
It would be interesting if a few of you actually read some of the bill
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/686464-130417-immigration-bill-schumer.html#document/p2
844 pages. Loads of pages talking about border enforcement with the criteria.
Then read what the LA Times says about border enforcement and the validity of the critera mentioned in the bill.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/03/nation/la-na-border-radar-20130404
Then more from the LA times…regarding the criteria in the bill.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-border-security-20130430,0,6389344.story
So, those realities have something to do with why I mention concerns about workplace inforcement.
Because the reality is that workplace enforcment is the only effective way to follow the intent of this immigration reform measure.
I'm assuming that those who favor it do want it enforced, right?
Now go back to the bill itself and look for those sections dealing with workplace enforcement.
Where is the funding?
Where is the manpower or agency that will make inspections of businesses large and small?
On the border they talk about spending billions and having well over 21,000 agents.
Whereas in workplace enforcement you don't see the money or personnel to make enforcement effective.
One poster spoke about “Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good”
I agree, however in this bill, the essential element of compliance in the workplace, is mentioned but we all know how that goes if you don't fund the program and don't have staff to make it get done.
Without those elements all those workplace provisions are meaningless.
Sure, at many large business concerns they will probably follow the law. However when you get to businesses that hire say, 200 or fewer employees, there is nothing in this bill to suggest that those locations will ever be enforced, no more than they are today.
This “problem” with the bill is hardly “Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good”.
The workplace enforcment portions of this bill are so far from perfect that they're hardly worth making them law.
AS seen in the LA Times article, all the press and emphasis for enforcment is being focused on the border. As indicated that is very much in question. The LA Times by the way, has been very pro reform and positive about immigration.
If anything they would not write something negative if it wasn't true.
So with border protection iffy, and workplace protection unenforced, that leaves tens of millions of American lower skilled American workers at risk for ever more new arrivals competeing for the same jobs.
Why not make the workplace enforcement as important and funded as the border?
Why not have something in the bill that favors legal workers, citizens and legal residents alike?
Do you actually want the bill to work?
LikeLike
Keep dreaming 8:29-I want some of the drugs you're on! No chance. Even Paul Ryan, the conservatives darling, has switched positions.
April 23, 2013
Paul Ryan: Immigration Reform Needed to Restore the American Idea.
LikeLike
House will kill amnesty, for absolutamente!
LikeLike
Aqui Aqui It will pass the house because the Republicans know they need the Hispanic vote to prevent the House from going Dem. in 2014. Wait & see!
LikeLike
Don't bet your house on it 7:08 because you WILL LOSE. You got Rubio and Karl Rove telling fellow Reps. they have to vote for the compromise. If you think the Reps. will kill it you don't understand politics and must live in LA La Land-LOL
LikeLike
House will kill amnesty.
Hondole! Hondole! Buena suerte por absulutamente!!
LikeLike
I:30—-Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The bill is a bi-partizan compromise. It will go through the house because the Republicans got only 29% of the Hispanic vote and 30% of the asian vote in the last election. They will lose the house in 14 if they don't change, and will never win another Presidential election if they don't vote for reform.
LikeLike
1:30 are you or were you a non-union laborer or a non-union contractor or sub-contractor? You sound like you have a lot of bitterness.
LikeLike
It's your personality and attitude that you should blame. Look in the mirror. My deductive reasoning says you have been let go or fired from jobs before, but you have to blame someone or something. After all, it can't be your abrasiveness, so it must be the immigrants. Truly a miserable non-union worker. You know what you need to do, so get others to join with you to form a union. I suspect your attitude will prevent that too. What a joke you are!
LikeLike
12:17, Well that says it all. Question any part of the 850 page Senate Immigration Reform bill and you are a “non-union scab”.
Not only that, but you aren't just against undocumented immigrants, NO you are anti-immigrant. Against them all, even those in your own family.
I love the way you try to smear people, anyone who dares question even one provision in the 850 page bill.
But hey, you've go yours. You indicate you are fully employed in work that has “Project Labor Agreements” where the government is footing the bill and thus you are protected.
Seemingly unconcerned about the other 75% of workers in the construction trade.
Yes, as long as you've got your “middle class” wage protected, you assume it will all just trickle down to the other workers.
Go out 580 to some of those construction sites.
Ask those guys about their “middle-class” wages and health benefit packages.
Oh I know, they're ALL scabs.. yes, 100% of them are scabs.
So in your book, they mean nothing. If the provisions of the Senate bill don't help them,, then tough, they deserve it. Thats what scabs gets.
All those houses built over the last 20 years, all scab labor.
Good for you, you've got your PLA work and tough luck for everyone else.
As though those who want a improvements in the Senate bill are folks who want to destroy your PLA agreements.
Really narrow minded and twisted thinking.
I wish more people were unionized, like I was, working my way through school, as a unionized janitor at nights, with only 20 hours a week, I got full heath care as well as good wages.
Try finding that today on a 20 hour job.
Try finding a union janitor in any private business.
No, its all subcontracted out.
OK, now declare me to be a right wing Republican, anti-union, anti-immigrant a-hole.
Make yourself feel good. Don't question your political leaders or the union bigwigs in Washington. They'll never steer you wrong.
Always trust them to look out for your best interests.
Don't blame me when the labor situation hasn't improved at all in 10 years.
Just be happy you've got your job while California is stuck at 10% unemployment for the past 5 years.
15% for those with lower skills and lower education. Oh yeah, trust the Senate.
All 850 pages. Its perfect. Don't adjust or change one line.
LikeLike
I agree with the anon above. In the words of a Republican candidate for President. If you are looking for someone to blame, BLAME YOURSELF.
LikeLike
To the blogger at 11:05- take your non-union scab self and stick it! You are one of the reasons we are losing our middle class. I'm union and proud of it. I have work with good pay and benefits. The bay area is a hotbed of PLA's and you know it. A lot of cities have rules of local hire to go along with the Project Labor Agreements which provide locals the spending power to help the local businesses. It sounds like one of the bloggers made an accurate guess as to who you are. Quit trying to blame immigrants you a-hole.
LikeLike
Viva La Raza, Viva Aztlan. We are taking back OUR land piece by piece inch by inch. Just like we took over Los Angeles the rest of California and the West will be ours as God had intended it to be. We win and you lose. Hasta luego.
LikeLike
1:23 PM.. What a laughable joke..
“And I'm guessing he is a scab non-union laborer who's blaming immigrants for losing work that he thinks is rightfully his”
What century are you living in? As though even 25% of the construction work in the Bay Area is done by union labor.
You live in a dream world of the past.
So you call anyone who isn't working on a union job a scab? AS though there is enough actual union contract work to keep even the majority working? No, what has happened to all those jobs is that they have been totally undercut by developers using contractors who use subs to do 80% of the work, and almost none of that is union labor.
Unless the government is paying, union members aren't working. Well, at least not in residential construction.
Name me one residential construction site in Alameda County where union labor is being used?
So, anyone who works on those sites is a “scab”.
What a make believe world you live in.
You want the real world, take a look at this report from NPR (National Public Radio), hardly some right wing publication.
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/11/176777498/texas-contractors-say-playing-by-the-rules-doesnt-pay
Then ask yourself, after the needed immigration reform is passed, what will be in the proposed bill to prevent that same condition from continuing in Alameda County.
Are there provisions to prevent the continued use of undocumented labor on all those same jobs?
Is there any funding in the bill to actively enforce those provisions? NO
So you end up with all the same problems after passage.
I am not against legalizing those here, but there is scant protections and funding in this bill to prevent the same conditions from continuing as newly arriving workers do the same work.
If you cared about local workers, union and otherwise, you'd be damanding some teeth be placed in the bill.
Otherwise 5 and 10 years from now, you have a repeat of the same folks building all those homes that are sure to be built, and at the same time the union hall will be a ghost town.
You either don't care about local workers or you don't understand what is and isn't included in this bill.
Mean time, locally, why don't you point out some developments of residential housing where you think construction workers are hired and employed in a fair manner, including all the subcontractors.
Who is being hired to do the drywall, the masonry work, the roofing, the painting.
You know reality. What wages and benefits are they being paid?
Tell everyone what percentage of salary and benefits are they getting compared to the wages being paid on government funded projects where the union members are working? Half? 30%?
You know all about this, why not tell the readers about the real world conditions here in Alameda County.
Or is there mostly the same stuff going on as seen in that NPR report?
Instead blame and attack anyone who questions any of the provisions put into this reform bill.
You guys are like sheep, taking anything you are told to support.
Ending up down the road, when its too late, with some debacle such as was handed down when NAFTA got passed, then signed by Bill Clinton.
You ignore the details now, but will bemoan the results 10 years from now.
The future of labor for those in the lower half of society, and especially for those in the bottom 25%, does not look favorable.
I'd demand that there be funding and full enforcement for all the provisions you think are in the bill. Without fundind and detailed enforcement, all the protections you think you are gonna get are nothing but a paper tiger.
No one is looking out for you. They cut a deal in DC and have you thinking you'll do fine.
Good luck with that promise.
Ever more decline in union labor and power.
Nationally, only 8% of American workers are union.
Take out public employees and you got squat.
Is that the proud future you think is OK?
LikeLike
Ahern doing a great and legal job.
Back to topic.
LikeLike
Aqui Aqui I wonder which bloggers guess is closest to the truth?
LikeLike
And I'm guessing he is a scab non-union laborer who's blaming immigrants for losing work that he thinks is rightfully his. I'm also guessing his lack of work has more to do with his attitude!
LikeLike
I'm now guessing you are a white male non-union contractor who has been hiring non-union cheap labor who are probably questionably legal?
LikeLike
Guess I wasn't done. I should have read my prior post. LOL.
OK, I'm DONE for “today”… no exception.
LikeLike
“That's why I almost always vote for progressive Dems over the more Conservative Republicans in the Bay Area.”
Oh yeah, good thing you cast your vote or one of those “Conservative Republicans in the Bay Area” might get elected.
How about naming one that has ever come within 20% of getting elected in the last 20 years in the Bay Area.
At least now, in a few districts we get a actual choice with the new “top two”.
The bill that allowed the voters to send Pete Stark packing.
Nice to see you've read the entire bill.
Now, from your memory, when will the mandatory use of E-Verify be required of that drywall subcontractor who has 8 employees?
–One year after regulations are “published”
–Two years after
–three years after
–Four years after
Who will be funded to see that the subcontractor actually follows such rules and that the employees being used are those same employees listed.
Or without inspection will it be entirely on the honor system, just like current practices?
Any funding in the entire bill for enforcement of small employers?
Please find me that section. I'd like to read it.
So, in about 4 to 5 years, small employers are suppose to use E-Verify for their employees, but it seems there is no one who is going to be checking up on if they actually do so.
Yes, sounds like a tough and comprehensive system.
Mean time, don't tell you nephews to make drywalling their profession of choice because in that field it looks like nothing will change the use of undocumented labor far into the future.
Or have I read the wrong parts of the bill?
LikeLike
I'll bet you are not done–I'm a declined-to-state voter who belongs to a union.
Yes, I have talked to carpenters since I'm in another trade. I have read pertinent parts of the bipartisan compromise and attorneys from labor who I trust have read it all and recommend support. Remember, progressive Dems and labor fought against NAFTA while almost all the republicans joined with Clinton and the business Dems. to support. That's why I almost always vote for progressive Dems over the more Conservative Republicans in the Bay Area.
LikeLike
1:15, Love your deep non-kneejerk responses.
Nice to know you've read and understand the bill.
I'm sure you've been to the carpenters hall in Hayward and talked to rank and file workers.
They all agree that the “progressive” elements fo the party have been looking out for their best interests over the past 20 years.
Thats why so many of them have had steady work, and why we see so many of them working on residentrial construction out in Dublin, San Ramon and such.
Yep, go to those construction sites and ask around.
You really know the local labor scene.
Everyone is happy with the past years and how the party has looked out for them.
Now we see, in the current version of the bill, that carpeneters are classified as lower skilled and won't be protected, while crane operators get special status and protection.
Oh yeah, really looking out for the average Joe.
BTW, I've been a registered Democrat for over 40 years. Worked my way through collge as a union janitor at nights. Got good wages and even health care. Check out what that same job pays now and what health care benefits they get.
Oh yes, this new bill, gives them lots of future indicated arrivals to compete for the same sparse jobs. Flood the market, its in the bill, and watch those wages climb up.
Or are you one of those who classify that job as one “Americans won't do”… You know, the one I did to work my way through school.
More BS, while lower skilled workers are being dumped over board with the lack of provisions for workplace enforcement.
You laugh while local workers will end up getting teh same short stick like they did from NAFTA, where President Bill Clinton promised it would mean more jobs for everyone.
As the crazy man Ross Perot said, that “sucking sound” from NAFTA as the jobs went south.
Promises promises, you seem to have bought the current bill hook line and sinker.
Even before you've ever read it.
OK, I'm done, have fun.. don't read the actual bill or learn any more than the talking points that make you feel progressive and smug..
LikeLike
Aqui Aqui
LikeLike
You conservative extremes make me laugh. Your bellowing are really dying gasps. Almost all the votes against NAFTA were from progressive Demos and you know it—look it up on wiki. The carpenters in Hayward as well as all the building trades are in support of the compromise package—go ask them.
Talk about re-writing history. OMG-LOL
LikeLike
About the 12 million illegals, just like the King, Elvis Presley, said “Return to sender!”
It's that easy, jovenes.
LikeLike
9:49, Talk about re-writing history by suggesting that few Democrats supported NAFTA…
Look at the reality wherein almost as many Democrats as Republicans supported it.
From Wiki–
———————————————
With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[3][4] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that “NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement.”[5]
———————————————
Once again we are discussing passing a comprehensive immigration bill, the contents of which will have a great impact on those same workers who were SCREWED by NAFTA.
I'm NOT talking about the so-called amnesty provisions nor the pathway to citizenship.
I wouldn't care if 99% of those here today were legalized and given a short path to citizenship.
What I do care about are the provisions that you seem all to ready to ignore. Provisions that will bring hundreds of thousands of low skilled “newly arriving” unskilled workers in to compete with those same workers who were devastated by NAFTA, signed by non other than Bill Clinton who said the following…
Again “NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement.”
Look at what happened to American workerks. The same people no on the brink of getting screwed again.
But YOU refuse to discuss the actual provisions in the law, and local legislators and party leaders are falling all over themselves to only point out the parts of the bill that are politically popular.
They don't talk about enforcement of the work place after the bill is passed. In fact they actually discuss that they don't want tough enforcement or hasty use of E-Verify because 1 person in 100 may have a delay in being hired.
Forgetting about the other 99 workers who will be protected.
Same bullshit as when NAFTA was passed. Passed and then down the road, the implementation cost the jobs of millions of working class Americans.
The very same people you now say you are supporting with “progressive ideas”.
Tell me how your ideas or this current bill is gonna help a Hayward carpenter?
Tell us. I'm waiting. I don't think you give a rat's ass about that worker. Not enough to care about the details contained in this comprehensive bill.
You know nothing about it, except for your dumb ass talking points. The party line, created by equally dumb fools who care nothing.
This bill in its details was done in a closed room collaboration by special interests on both sides.
I can assure you, NO ONE in that room was representing that carpenter in Hayward.
This will harm many working people, be sure of that.
NO, not the issues about those currently here, undocumented immigrants,, NO, the other provisions into the future are the ones that are mostly hidden from discussion.
Clearly you know little about them or how they will impact the average working guy in Alameda County.
You are dumb and happy to sign off on the entire thing. Just like NAFTA, the details will grind out over years and be assured, they don't favor that working man in Hayward.
LikeLike
My money is on the House of Reps. killing this amnesty travesty once and for all.
As for learning to speak Spanish, better get ready to LEARN the king's English! You will be tested; those who fail, well, there is still deportation.
LikeLike
I don't know about the other 2 or 3 progressives on this blog that I agree with, but I do support the compromise, and will support the new laws after passage. BTW it was the Republicans by a very large vote and the fewer business Democrats that gave us NAFTA, which I opposed. In fact, it was only the progressive Democrats that carried the fight against NAFTA and other trade agreements that screwed our workers and destroyed our middle class!
LikeLike
I suppose it does no good at all to explain to you that the senate Gang of Eight bill includes about 100 pages on “amnesty” and about 700 pages on all the other items that affect American workers.
That you choose to ONLY address that one issue speaks loudly about how little you know about the rest of the bill.
Do you also know that majority of Americans who support “amnesty” (as you put it), also favor much more border enforcement by a 70% margin.
So, back to the question which you refuse to address.
After legalization takes place for almost all of the current 12 million undocumented, what do you then propose for those who continue to cross the border without authorization and who then end up working illegally.
Obviously everyone knows a good number of undocumented will continue to cross the border in the comming years.
If caught working, what do you propose to do with them?
After all, the “comprehensive immigration reform” will have been passed and being implemented.
So, bottom line. If, after passage of the bill, new undocumented workers are found working, will you be willing at that time to detain them and deport them for violating the newly passed law?
Or will you just say, disregard the new Gang of Eight's bill provisions and allow them to stay.
In other words, will you support even the new laws after passage, or do you simply want no enforcement of any laws regarding immigration and undocumented workers?
How about answering that one question, or do you choose to keep hiding your position on that point?
LikeLike
I agree with 11:54-there are too many ultra-conservative right wingers on this blog who think they are the real Americans and only they know the truth. What a joke, and they are way too arrogant. The new majority will be Hispanic in a few years so they better learn to speak Spanish, or they will be left behind. In the next decade most real Americans will be speaking more than 1 language. By a huge majority most Americans agreed with the bipartisan amnesty compromise agreed upon in the Senate. It will pass the house because even Karl Rove and other conservative Republicans like Rubio say if it doesn't the Republican party will never win another Presidential election.
LikeLike
For the small simple minded extremists who blog here—The majority of Americans are in favor of amnesty whether you like it or not. I'm glad you dinosaurs are in the minority. If you can read, look at the latest polls. By a 3-1 margin real Americans side with me. So you can whine and cry, piss and moan, stamp your feet and hold your breath all you want. You will not change reality and you will simply become a footnote that will quickly be forgotten as America changes in the 21st century to a much better demographic. Hold on to your 19th century, yes racist, thinking–you will still lose because the majority of Americans are against you. BYE BYE DINOSAURS :)–
P.S. Even the majority of Republicans are against you and favor amnesty!
LikeLike
Well, those “12 million” are never going to be deported.
That anwers one contributor to this board.
AS to the idiot who calls anyone who questions the details of the Senate bill, RACIST, he is a mindless jerk, who probably was fully on board when the senate passed NAFTA.
Don't question the wisdom of the glorified “senate”, they know what is best.
So there you have it, the two extremes.
In the middle you have special interests carving up the bill and rearranging it like they were making sausage.
The idiot who accepts it without question cares not one bit about how it will affect the lower skilled and lesser educated American workers.
As to anyone who objects to certain provisions, you might look back to what Rep. Barbara Jordan warned about many years ago. That the unfettered illegal immigration would impose significant harm upon the lower skilled American workers.
But I supppose that mindless poster who declares anyone who questions the details of the senate package, to be racist, would say the same thing about Rep. Barbara Jordan, if he even knew who she was, or anything about the commission she headed and the report that was produced.
No, just label everyone racist.
LikeLike
The problem with the above comment is so obvious: “What to do with those who come AFTER?”
My point exactly. There is but one answer that is fair, and follows the law–deport 12 million+.
No courage or guts, you say? Not practical, you say? I say again, this house has not yet been built. Quit trying to cut corners [for you carpenters]. This nation was founded on the blood of the indigenous peoples, but it was also conceived in liberty and with laws that apply to ALL.
This is what's lost on you folks. I wasn't even 20 years old during the last great amnesty of 1986. Everyone and his mother's next door neighbor cried 'never again!' Well, fast-forward 27 years and here we are–again. The problem will never, ever go away until we start to utilize the tools at our disposal: Deportation department. I don't hear anyone in congress talking about abolishing it. Does that mean simply paying civil servants in that department to do nothing, read the paper, drink coffee, etc. I don't think so.
There is but one and only one answer that will work. It's why it exists. When you break the law there are consequences. All those G-d damn Canadians need to go back. [My mother was born in Canada but came here LEGALLY and became a US citizen. Anything, I repeat, anything else is amnesty and makes a mockery out of legalized immigration. Those who are legal immigrants from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, France, etc., are having their faces slapped and their hard work trivialized by not recognizing the sacrifices they made. They followed the law, waited in line–in the home country, not here–and didn't sneak in. We dishonor them when we talk about amnesty. Pray to your G-d that the House of Reps. kills this mockery once and for all.
We must build the house legally for all. Not racist; not unfair. It's the American way, and favors all equally. If you battle cry is open borders for all cloaked in 'racism,' peddle your hate elsewhere. In America, we don't do that crap.
As a wise man, just saying again and again.
LikeLike
5:55
” Labor all over the US and particularly in the Bay Area is in favor of amnesty for immigrants”
I agree with you fully.
However what you seem to be missing is the issue of AFTER the so called “amnesty”.
Lots of folks, including union members feel that legality for those here prior to January 1st, 2012 is the right thing to do, but what they are concerned about is enforcement AFTER passage of the Senate Bill.
What is there about that concern that you don't understand?
Let me ask you outright. After full legality and a path to citizenship are given to all those who were here before January 1st, 2012 (By the way I wouldn't have a problem with May 1st, 2013 being the effective date)… But after the passage of the bill, tell me, what do you think should be done for those who arrive AFTER those dates, and after passage.
You do know, no one suggests the border is going to be shut down. Tens of thousands of new undocumented will certainly arrive over the subsequent months, hundreds of thousands over the next years.
The question for you is , how should they be handled?
Should those who come after the agreed upon dates be allowed to work, or do you want strong enforcement
And do you suggest that anyone who wants workplace enforcement for those who arrive after the cutoff dates are “racist” in wanting full enforcement of the new law that will be passed?
How about you tell all of us what you want done after passage of the proposed new bill?
Or are you only able to discuss this matter by calling anyone who questions any provisions, “white racists”…
Just wondering if you ever discuss the issue or are just a person limted to slogans A, B, and C.
LikeLike
Real Americans–all the races, ethnicities, religions and both genders–support the laws on the books already.
ANYTHING else is a slap in the face and a kick in the gut to ALL immigrants who emigrated LEGALLY. We don't open borders. That's only Berkeley. Go back from whence you came if you don't like it!
LikeLike
You radicals who are ultra-left-wingers, union whores or both, don't get too excited just yet. The amnesty that you crave so much is no done deal. Even if the senate passes it, it almost certainly will die in the House. Then there is nothing for Obama to sign. Boo hoo. Get the point yet! In other words I'll take the status quo until such time as when congress can muster the balls to ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS.
Anyone want to bet that this is a done deal? I'll take that bet. And for the woman at 4:05 and before who likes to bandy about the term 'racist,' sorry bitch, no cigar. When you learn how to read–take a night course–you'll see the references to 'Guatemala [Hispanic], Ghana [black], and Great Britain [white].' Just because it's driving you crazy and that you stir the pot with your race baiting doesn't mean you can make shit up as you go along. Do dice, baby.
Laws apply to all equally. Legal immigration=O.K.; illegal immigration=deportation. Those are the laws. Learn some respect for the country you're in. We don't do open borders. Not going to happen no matter who is in the White House or the Congress. Give it up.
But I do agree with you on one thing: you are definitely an LMAO. For those who don't know the acronym, it stands for LOOSER MENTALITY, ASS 'OLE!
I'm just saying, again!
LikeLike
Don't be a pretender or a liar. Labor all over the US and particularly in the Bay Area is in favor of amnesty for immigrants. Go to the Labor Council and the Building Trades Council and you will find literature supporting what I'm telling you, but I think you know that already. So quit your bullshit! You ARE a racist.
You definitely don't speak for LABOR. I dare you to go to the Carpenters Hall and spout your b.s. You will get your white male ass kicked and I'll laugh my MFAO.
LikeLike
Sorry, pal, unlike the other poster, I don't give a damn about amnesty.
If I had it my way I'd give 99% of all undocumented legaization tomorrow, with a path towards citizenship within 5 or 10 years.
They are here and no one is going to send them home.
Unlike you who only thinks in narrow band talking points, I care about American workers, especially those in the lower levels of skill and education.
This bill, you so easily support puts their future in more question as their areas of employment are exactly those in which the “unskilled” authorizations of immigration are going to most likely affect.
NO, you want to make believe that there are all these “jobs Americans won't do” and that we need to bring in 200,000 more workers each year when California has over a 14% rate of unemployment for workers in those classifications.
(NO, I'm not talking about workers in agriculture)
Have you ever read the Pew Hispanic Research Centers study on job categories and which jobs “Americans will actually do”
You buy into naive sterotypes and when anyone challenges you, you label then racist Tea Party members.
Did you know this bill classifies carpenters as “unskilled” compared to a “crane operator”
Look around the East Bay, Hayward, San Leandro, Oakland. Talk to those in the lesser skilled catetory and ask them how difficult it is to find a job.
Like I said, I don't give a shit about the amnesty issue you keep running up the flag pole.
I care about the ability of lower class working men and women having the ability to earn a living so that they can raise a child and have a roof over their head.
You think just because “progressive” local leaders don't question some of the provisions of the Senate bill that its just fine.
You were probaby part of the mindless pack of idiots who favored the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFA) without ever questioning it.
Look, we legalize everyone here…fine with me.
But as we look to the future, this senate bill has no provisions for EFFECTIVE enfocement such that tens of thousands… hundreds of thousands of new undocumented workers can come right across the border and work in the very same jobs they now do, not only taking jobs, but lowering the wage scale.
This immigration bill has no teeth once newly arrive undocumented worker get past the border.
Read the provisions about E-Verify. Nothing in place now, no detailed plan in year one or year two, only vague mention of ONLY making business with 50,000 workers or more from complying in year 3, then perhaps by year 4 or 5, looking at businesses with 5,000 employees.
When will they ever look at restaurants, janitorial, landscaping, carpenters, residential construction workers, warehouse workers for small business, roofers, and a thousand other types of small businesses?
NOTHING in your favorite bill talks about any means to enforce that for the millions who work in those areas.
YOU seem to care nothign about Americans who work in those areas where they enjoy a unemployment rate of over 15%.
You care nothing about them because you have your talking points.
One of which is to characterize anyone who questions provisions of the Senate bill as “racist” or Tea Party members.
You either don't care about the American workers of whom I speak, or you are ignorant about the full details of the bill.
You are more knee jerk than those who oppose this for far right reasons.
Unthinking and yet in your own mind, telling yourself you are “progressive” and for the working man. What a load of bullshit.
Again, go to the Carpenters Hall and talk to some of the men there who haven't been working 40 hour weeks in a 5 or 10 years.
LikeLike
1:30 sounds a lot like Paul Var gas
LikeLike
anonymous 1:30– All the groups you just mentioned are all in favor of the bill. Funny how you and the extremists know better than them and want to speak for them. You're wrong! The horse is out of the barn and you can bet your life savings that amnesty will happen whether you like it or not–no one cares what you think because you are a in the minority in poll after poll. LMAO-OMG
p.s. I agree with the blogger who called you a racist, but you can't admit it.
LikeLike
Really hope the House kills Amnesty 2013, which is what I'm betting on.
Let's get it right by ENFORCING the rules already on the books. Just saying.
LikeLike
Well put. Thank you.
LikeLike
The poster may be impractical and out of step with the political realities, but that doesn't make him a racist.
The reality is that the Gang of Eight immigration bill is going to be a negative in the lives of millions and millions of lower skilled American worker who are going to face even more competition in employment. The majority who will be economically harmed will be minorities.
Talk to the unemployed African American male in East Oakland between the ages of 20 and 40 and explain to him how the immigration reform is going to improve his prospects over the next 5 years.
From A to Z his life will be even harder.
Lower level jobs will have even more applicants.
Not only from those made legal, but from the hundreds of thousands of unskilled who will be allowed to come legally under the new entry allowances.
No, this bill is aimed to help those who are getting it passed. Business is going to get more skilled and unskilled workers. Democratic political types hope to gain more voters.
Unions such as the SEIU hope to sign up more members.
But you see, no one is representing the interests of the tens of millions of lower skilled workers who have a high school or less education.
Go talk to the carpenters at the union hall in Hayward. Guys between 30 and 50 years old.
Ask then how they think bringing in tens of thousands of new carpenters is gonna help them make a living.
The Democratic party, the Republican party, the unions, and especially local party leaders have done nothing for them. Passage of the senate bill will further damage their future economic prospects.
You don't hear them insisting on strong and quick use of E-Verify for all jobs.
In fact you hear some of them say that anything like that is unfair and unworkable, will harm some.
Anything BUT a fool-proof method to method to prevent future newly arrived undocumented workers from working is what they seem to be inclined to accept.
The future looks bleak for so many. Not much in the bill to protect their economic future, but lots to help business and politicians.
LikeLike
Anon 11;25—-You're an extremist and will go the way of the Do Do bird because you are Dumb Dumb and a racist. BYE BYE LMAO
LikeLike
Aqui! Aqui!
LikeLike
11:44, you've really got your head up your ass. I'm a DEMOCRAT who does not favor amnesty! Tea party? I don't think so. Just like your GOP has a thimble-full of pro-abortion folks [now why can't they just be the majority?], I am a Democrat who breaks with my party over amnesty. I don't give a rat's ass as to what any 'strategist' says. I also could care less about currying favor by giving up rule of law.
As a Democrat is truly pains me to say this, but my best hope is the GOP killing off this farce of the Great Amnesty of 2013. Ronald Reagan was a whore and so too will Barack Obama be one.
Amnesty is a slap in the face and a kick in the gut to every immigrant whoever came here legally, whether from Guatemala, Ghana, or Great Britain.
So quit spewing your 'win at all costs' crap. I'm about principle and rule of law. Period. Right now, while it really pains me, I'm a better patriot and citizen of the USA then you are. I don't believe in political expediency trumping principle or rule of law. Hopefully you'll get it this time around.
LikeLike
Aqui Aqui
LikeLike
“The status quo is not acceptable to Republican voters,” said GOP consultant Kevin Madden, who has worked for Romney and others. Republican leaders, he said, must push for the best rewrite of immigration laws they can achieve.
Texas-based GOP consultant Matt Mackowiak noted that evangelical leaders, major business groups and others that opposed immigration changes in 2007 are now on board. He said the Republican Party should focus on attracting Hispanic voters with its standard message of small government and free enterprise, and not worry too much if a new law produces more Democratic-leaning voters for a while.
“If we don't win 40 to 45 percent of Hispanics,” Mackowiak said, “we're not going to win elections regardless of whether this happens.”
LikeLike
Do you not read the papers? The republican party will become the dinosaur party if they don't come up with a form of amnesty. A huge number of Dems. and declined-to-state voters favor amnesty! Even a majority of republicans want some form of amnesty. Get it! Unless we want to fade into extinction there will be amnesty. Take your tea party extreme conservativeness and stick it where the sun don't shine. Your head is already there–just saying.
LikeLike
Hopefully the House of Reps. will either slow down or kill the Senate's Great Amnesty of 2013.
Rather have it stay the way it is if the alternative is amnesty where illegals get to stay.
LikeLike
11:27, I mostly agree with many parts of your stance on the issue.
But whether you or I agree that this should have been handled in a different manner, the political reality has shifted and just sitting there complaining does nothing.
Better to find some way to have some influence on the final shape of the bill.
Personally I certainly don't want open borders, however all the emphasis on the borders is a dirversion from the only real place to have effective enforcment, which is at the workplace.
The proposed senate bill won't be closing that loophole very soon if at all. The entire issue of using and enforcing the use of E-Verify is very much in place.
That is the type of issue where a person such as your self should try to have some influence.
We can spend billions and not be able to close the borders 90%.
However simple metermaids seem to easily enforce parking laws on a regular basis. Unless the E-Verify system is as effectively enforced, then this who reform bill is a farce.
As previously stated, the issue of what is essentially amnesty was over about 10 years ago, and what is being done now it to just make it formal for all those here prior to Jan. 1st, 2012.
There is no will in either party to enforce the current law and remove those already here.
Might have been possible in 1993, perhaps even in 2000, but not 1 chance in 1000 it will happen now.
Time to move on, improve the proposed bill, or sit and do nothing but complain, allowing others to frame the bill as they wish.
LikeLike
I'm the person who wrote 11:27. I'm the first to agree that what the Europeans did to the indigenous peoples of North, South, and Central America was horrendous and genocide. If the clock could be turned back I believe that all of the 'conquerors' should never have left and stayed in Europe and Asia.
LikeLike
I wonder what the Indians thought?
LikeLike
You just don't get it, sonny. Yes to everything you've outlined above. The difference is that I RESPECT the rule of law and don't support amnesty in any form it's that simple.
Unfortunately, you tend to think with your head up your ass, jump on whichever political bandwagon polls best, and are an apologist superlative. I don't hail from that 'school' of thought.
If the majority goes for amnesty, then that will be it. There is nothing to influence except backbone, self-respect, and value for our laws. At the end of the day I have to be able to face myself in the mirror. If my value for rule of law bothers you so, then simply shut up and stop responding. Go out with your freinds and simply chant for what you believe in: open borders and amnesty. In this country people are illegal if they sneaked in.
LikeLike
8:31, You keep sticking to your guns on this issue.
Its interesting to note that the pro-immigration reform folks are so much more effective than you are.
You'll be yelling and complaining all the way until the bill is signed into law.
I wonder, what is the last time you've ever written to or called one of your elected representatives?
Last time you ever worked for a candidate.
Last time you supported one of the national groups that support your postion. Such as FAIR or Numbers USA.
No I suspect you just sit and complain while the entire issue moves in the other direction.
LikeLike
Actually, America has lost. Pitty her.
LikeLike
Follow the law. You break the law, you get deported. I don't care about those who favor amnesty. I don't. Just saying!
LikeLike
Anon 7:55 The last poll I saw 75% of the American citizens disagree with your warped ideology. In fact a majority of Republicans disagree with you. Do you belong to the George Wallace racist party or just an ultra conservative tea bagger party member? Your ship has sailed on this issue and you lost. Just saying. LOL
LikeLike
By MW:
In regard to Haggerty's accusations that some members of the Board of Supervisors engaged in silly little games, played politics, and were disrespectful, etc, I am sure that all of our local elected officials are very fine, wonderful, honest, and totally ethical people, and that therefore none of them would ever engage in such activities.
LikeLike
No amnesty; no dice.
LikeLike
3:37 and 3:48, Oh OK, just hang on for a while as the law is about to change.
Then you can concentrate on enforcement of the new law.
Save up your energy for that reality, since no one in government has the intention of enforcing current law.
They might enforce the new law if you will expend some energy at that future date.
In the mean time, you might try to have some influence on how the new law is written.
That would be more productive than trying to get anyone to enforce the current rules.
LikeLike
i agree with the above comment. fact is if we had 12,000,000 boston bombers in this country the government would move heaven and earth to catch them. no different. we have the resources just need the will. if this is the law then lets follow it. dont we have a department of deportation? what's that all about?
LikeLike
Again, I deal with the law. Law is the law. That is the only impact that is relevant. Period.
LikeLike
3:09, Duke Wayne is dead, and so are the chances that anyone is going to be rounded up enmass.
What is legal and fair has long since been considered and dropped in favor of what is practical.
Why do you persist with such a unrealizable notion?
Some form of regularization or legalization is going to happen for over 95% of those who are already here.
If you want to have any impact, you can only do so by trying to influence the shape and details of that reform.
However, if you just want to let off steam about how unfair the world is, then by all means, continue as you have.
LikeLike
Anon above
I don't what drug you are on, but you live in your own fantasy world. LMAO
LikeLike
Pathway to citizenship begins by returning to the home country, standing, way, way, way at the back of the line and then 'starting all over again!'
That's what's legal and fair. Otherwise it is a slap in the face and a kick in the gut to every immigrant whoever came to America LEGALLY. Everyone has a 'story.' Not impressed.
As Duke Wayne once said: “Round 'em up, and send 'em back!”
LikeLike
1:26 OK, go find the undocumented immigrant.
Then call the ICE phone number to report him.
Oh, yes, its a recording, but you can leave a message.
Then wait around to see the enforcement team arrive.
Better bring a nice thick novel to read while you wait. Hmmm, better make that a complete set of the World Book Encyclopedia. Start on “A” then work your way through to the “Z” volume while you stay alert for the arrival of the ICE enforcement team.
Don't give up, keep leaving messages. I'm sure they're on their way.
LikeLike
I don't do politics, I do the law.
Deportation is on the books, it is the law, and it is what must be done.
Game over.
LikeLike
12:07, and to some degree 12:52,
That ball game is over. Republicans to some extent as well as almost all Democratic legislators have moved well beyond the issue of ever “deporting them all”.
Over, that issue is over. Time to move onto the version of reform that will take place.
The enforcement provisions and numbers in the various categories.
That is where any influence may take place, NOT in whether 10 million of the 11 million undocumented will be deported.
OVER, for better or worse, regardless of your views, that issue is no longer in play.
OVER.
Now, what do you propose aside from that?
LikeLike
Anyone here illegally should be deported and any babies born should not be US citizens. Take care of those born here legally first.
LikeLike
Dick Valley continues to have his head up his ass. Actually, they're one in the same.
I'm so G-d damn tired of this shit. Twelve million+ illegals came into this country knowingly. I'm sure the vast majority are good, honest, and hard-working–and it is completely irrelevant! Bottom line is that we don't have open borders; can't even remember when this country was open. I don't care who is president or who is in the congress–never, ever going to happen. These masses, primarily Hispanic, are showing a great disservice to anyone who ever immigrated legally, whether from Guatemala, Ghana, or Great Britain.
We have laws on the books and they need to be enforced, not 'reformed.' All twelve million+ need to be deported, period. That's the law, and that's what's right. ANYTHING ELSE is a slap in the face to all legal immigrants who obeyed the law. Obama will follow his idol, Ronald Reagan, and sign the Great Amnesty of 2013, just as Reagan did in 1986.
And as for the kids who were born here, hey, vacation is over. If they're citizens, then they can stay, or not. Don't give me this crap about breaking up families. This was knowingly done. Kids can either go with parents or stay; their choice.
No this is bullshit. All the illegals and their 'advocates' want is amnesty. “Nobody is illegal!” News flash Juan, John or Dejon, if you don't follow the law, there are repercussions, and yes, illegal is the opposite of legal. So G-d damn sick and tired of all this amnesty crap. Very simple: legal=yes; illegal=no. That's it. It IS that simple.
Dick Valley, who is German on his father's side, can go take his resolution and stick it up his ass, where is brains are. As a Hayward resident, how I long for the days of Gail Steele, who never would have tolerated this shit.
LikeLike
The best part was when a woman spoke in favor of secure communities and the crowd clapped for her. That tells me some organizer told people to show up and they did, not knowing what the hell they were there for. One could say there was a language barrier, but I'm not totally buying that because from what it looked like there were translation services provided.
Valle should run for Sheriff and start a diversion program that requires criminals to hold hands under a tree while chanting about how we are all from earth. That should solve the crime in his lovely district.
LikeLike
“Our brothers and sisters are living in the shadows due to a broken immigration policy,”
True
However, what will be the Supervisor's position AFTER a comprehensive immigration bill is passed and implemented?
The favored Gang of Eight bill says that it will cover anyone who came here prior to January 1st, 2012.
Anyone who came after that date AND anyone who arrives unauthorized after passage of comprehensive reform will be undocumented and subject to workplace inspection and if found, detained and deported.
So when that happens and the Sheriff at that time, after comprehensive reform, cooporates with the Federal Government, ICE, as indicated by law, what then will the Board of Supervisors and others say the Sheriff should do?
Will you then say its still not OK to detain and deport those who are still illegally arriving in the country after the passage of the long awaited comprehensive immmigration reform which will make about 10.5 out of the current 11 million legal?
Just wondering what Valle and others, the church, the immigrants rights groups will say about fully enforcing the law then, AFTER reform is in place.
Anyone…
LikeLike