Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 27, 2007, 10:50:37 AM
By KEN BELSON and JILL P. CAPUZZO
RIVERSIDE, N.J., Sept. 25 A little more than a year ago, the Township Committee in this faded factory town became the first municipality in New Jersey to enact legislation penalizing anyone who employed or rented to an illegal immigrant.
Within months, hundreds, if not thousands, of recent immigrants from Brazil and other Latin American countries had fled. The noise, crowding and traffic that had accompanied their arrival over the past decade abated.
The law had worked. Perhaps, some said, too well.
With the departure of so many people, the local economy suffered. Hair salons, restaurants and corner shops that catered to the immigrants saw business plummet; several closed. Once-boarded-up storefronts downtown were boarded up again.
Meanwhile, the town was hit with two lawsuits challenging the law. Legal bills began to pile up, straining the towns already tight budget. Suddenly, many people including some who originally favored the law started having second thoughts.
So last week, the town rescinded the ordinance, joining a small but growing list of municipalities nationwide that have begun rethinking such laws as their legal and economic consequences have become clearer.
I dont think people knew there would be such an economic burden, said Mayor George Conard, who voted for the original ordinance. A lot of people did not look three years out.
In the past two years, more than 30 towns nationwide have enacted laws intended to address problems attributed to illegal immigration, from overcrowded housing and schools to overextended police forces. Most of those laws, like Riversides, called for fines and even jail sentences for people who knowingly rented apartments to illegal immigrants or who gave them
Post by: Manedwolf on September 27, 2007, 10:52:21 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 27, 2007, 12:03:02 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 27, 2007, 12:31:03 PM
Brazil is a democratic state with a reasonably good economy, its own domestic electronics industry now and some huge, modern business cities full of skyscrapers, malls and US brands, it's not a third-world country. Probably the only success story in South America. So talk of lots of immigrants from there fleeing a sweep on "illegals" just doesn't make sense.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 27, 2007, 12:39:54 PM
Post by: Nitrogen on September 27, 2007, 12:44:40 PM
If the immigrant forged or otherwise stole an identity, I think that person should be responsible to the company or government for the fine, in addition to any charges with Identity Theft or forgery.
Post by: roo_ster on September 27, 2007, 07:02:03 PM
Last I heard, Brazil has a massive population of the dirt-poor. Or am I confused?
Poor is relative."We didn't grow up poor, we grew up po', cause we couldn't afford the 'o' and the 'r.' We were still better off than folks who were p'." My old pastor during one of his sermons.
I think that there are gradiations in poor/rich. Brazil, while still having plenty of poor, is doing better than basketcases like haiti.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 27, 2007, 07:15:20 PM
http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/english/regions/americas/bra/index.htm
Quote
Although Brazil is an important industrial power with the strongest economy in the Latin American region, poverty is still widespread in the country. According to some estimates, 50 per cent of the population is poor (or living on slightly less than US$2 per person per day). Brazil is second only to South Africa in the world ranking of income inequality.
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Americas/Brazil-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html
http://poverty2.forumone.com/library/view/8638/
http://wbln1018.worldbank.org/LAC/LAC.nsf/ECADocbyUnid/28840FED2FE42C2A85256E4D00661B68?Opendocument
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2710797.stm
Post by: Euclidean on September 27, 2007, 09:57:06 PM
That is all.
Post by: Tallpine on September 28, 2007, 08:57:04 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 28, 2007, 09:00:51 AM
Wow, I didn't know there was anyplace that you could live on $2 a day
Depends on "live". Possibly in some really rural villages, (Brazil is a HUGE country), but in the cities, COL is probably close to the US. Their malls have stores like Barnes & Noble, Ralph Lauren, Abercrombie & Fitch, etc. Armani has a big presence there.
Mall there, in Sao Paulo.
Quote
Totaling over 500 stores and services in 365.000 square meters of constructed area, 12 fully authorized vehicle and motorcycle dealers, 14 movie screens, 4 food courts, 3 supermarkets, 2 home centers, leisure area, a Detran unit and much more in an area of 1 million square meters.
Not $2 a day. (Wow, that sounds just like here, that kinda mall, doesn't it?)
They may have some poor areas, but in general, they're the antithesis of most of South America, especially the failed or failing third-world socialist states like Venezuela and Bolivia.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 28, 2007, 09:10:36 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 28, 2007, 09:11:39 AM
i'm waiting for supporters of "le cause" to explain how the same economic and social events won't happen if they get their way with the immigration"final solution" they wish for. or how those event wil somehow be good things. don't all jump at once now
How about providing some "before" and "after" crime statistics on the city in your original post?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 28, 2007, 10:21:56 AM
this remark from the mayor i like though
" I dont think people knew there would be such an economic burden, said Mayor George Conard, who voted for the original ordinance. A lot of people did not look three years out.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 28, 2007, 12:45:45 PM
i'm waiting for supporters of "le cause" to explain how the same economic and social events won't happen if they get their way with the immigration"final solution" they wish for. or how those event wil somehow be good things. don't all jump at once now
Do you support anything that improves the economy? Would any downsides of illegal immigration outweigh the alleged economic benefits?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 28, 2007, 12:51:55 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 28, 2007, 02:09:39 PM
yes but the downsides have to be real. not reprocessed sturmfront drivel
I guess over 70% of the American population must be white supremacists, then. Wow, the blacks, Hispanics and Asians are sure going to be surprised that they're white supremacists!
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 28, 2007, 02:15:59 PM
Post by: El Tejon on September 29, 2007, 07:33:36 AM
Who would do these jobs? Native-born teenagers who did these jobs 20 years ago and now sitting on the couch getting fat and bitching about how no one is giving them enough.
I don't see how America can work without illegal immigration, but am willing to listen.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 29, 2007, 07:36:55 AM
If you kick all the illegal immigrants out, then someone has to clean the bathrooms, work in restaurants and mow lawns. Who would do these jobs? Native-born teenagers who did these jobs 20 years ago and now sitting on the couch getting fat and b***hing about how no one is giving them enough.
Of course, we could also cut down on govt. handouts. As it is, unskilled adult Americans won't do the drudge work, because welfare is often a better option for them.
Post by: doczinn on September 29, 2007, 03:33:14 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 29, 2007, 04:27:47 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 29, 2007, 04:56:23 PM
The point is that economic benefits of illegal immigration are really not relevant. You're not actually worried about us surviving the exodus of illegals, are you? We can take care of ourselves.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 29, 2007, 05:06:39 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 29, 2007, 06:36:46 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 29, 2007, 07:19:32 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 29, 2007, 07:38:08 PM
What I will tell you is that I won't be frightened or bought off by stories like this. We have a right, and our govt. has a duty, to regulate our borders. And I would see them regulated in our best interest. If that means immigration laws should be relaxed to allow more foreigners in, so be it. If that means the laws should be tightened, I'm fine with that, too. Whatever the case may be, foreigners should never be allowed to enter our country by breaking our laws. Can we at least agree on that?
Post by: macadore on September 29, 2007, 07:53:55 PM
If you kick all the illegal immigrants out, then someone has to clean the bathrooms, work in restaurants and mow lawns.
Who would do these jobs? Native-born teenagers who did these jobs 20 years ago and now sitting on the couch getting fat and bitching about how no one is giving them enough.
I don't see how America can work without illegal immigration, but am willing to listen.
I disagree with the comment about naive born teenagers. When my son was 16 he went to work at a fast food chain for more than minimum wage. By the time he was out of high school, he was making $18.00 per hour. Native born teenagers won't do those jobs because they can get better jobs. That is the same reason the rest of us won't.
Who would do these jobs? Native-born teenagers who did these jobs 20 years ago and now sitting on the couch getting fat and bitching about how no one is giving them enough.
I don't see how America can work without illegal immigration, but am willing to listen.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 29, 2007, 07:59:25 PM
some sage member of mensa claimed he wouldn't break the law/cross a border illegally to better his families life. hes a fool. i can assure you i would. i would kill to do it. and its foolish to think someone else wouldn't. we can fabtasize about a working fence or puff and strut about arming and holding the line but those are poor options set us up to fail in a way that makes the war on some drugs look like a win. our failure to act has caused things to get to the point where some good folks are real hard pressed and driven to take action. with consequences and tragic results i don't think they are ready for.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 29, 2007, 08:03:34 PM
See, I tried to degrade myself to your level of offensively careless writing. Couldn't quite go that far.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 29, 2007, 08:15:04 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 29, 2007, 08:35:35 PM
I was saying that, were I a poor Mexican, I might cross the border illegally myself. But that doesn't mean it would be right to do so.
Post by: Archie on September 29, 2007, 08:42:03 PM
One: the town's fiscal problems come in part from 'lawsuits'. What lawsuits? Is the city being sued for the laws it passed? On what grounds are the suits filed? Are these just more harrassment funded by those of the MoveOn or Cindy Sheehan ilk?
How much money has the city saved from lowered police and incarceration costs? (Never enough to pay for lawyers, obviously...)
Two: How much do illegal aliens cost this nation? Is anyone aware that after the toilets are cleaned and so forth, each illegal alien costs the taxpayers of the U. S. some ten to twenty thousand dollars in tax support each year? So how does that assist the economy of the nation?
Cassandra's daddy does have one valid point. Mexico - for one - has so many illegals working in the U. S. because the economy of Mexico is so wretched. My last information indicates 40% unemployment and massive underemployment - getting paid dirt wages for just about anything. So, as long as Mexicans are starving and the 'land of opportunity' is right next door, they'll come.
By the way, Mexico's poor economy has one and only one underlying factor, the corruption of the Mexican government as an institution.
So, what to do?
The obvious answer is to annex Mexico, fire the government and build a new country on the site. However, that would cause other problems. Of course, if we suggested this openly, the leftists in the U. S. would pass enough bricks to build that silly wall we keep talking about.
Post by: roo_ster on September 30, 2007, 12:01:16 PM
the silence from anyone vis a vis one of the early towns that attempted anti immigrant laws reversing their position is amusing. if the results on a small scale hurt so bad so quick what do you guys emote a large scale application will do?
Any change in circumstances brings economic swirl. There will always be a period of time when re-action lags action. Also, it is not surprising that those who benefited most from illegals (employers of illegals and those merchants who catered to them) make more noise than those who were hurt by the illegals' presence. Two factors are involved:
1. Concentrated benefits and dispersed costs of illegals
2. Reportage of crimes by illegals that did NOT happen as a result of their recent absence is notoriously scarce
The thing about illegal aliens is the relatively small amount their labor actually contributes to our economy. For instance, the cost of the labor that goes into agricultural produce with a heavy illegal presence is dwarfed by the sales tax paid on those goods by the end user. Giving illegals the boot and doubling the cost of labor would barely be felt by Joe T. Consumer.
Oh, and one more thing:
c-daddy, your 2007-09-28, 16:51:55 post left a slime trail on my monitor:
Quote from: c-daddy
yes but the downsides have to be real. not reprocessed sturmfront drivel
[borat_voice]Nice*! I have to remember that technique. Try to associate those on other side of issue with group of disrepute... Very nice! Would you prefer to be slimed as NAMBLA rag-man, jack booted thug, or puppy-stomper? Oh, I know you are none of those things and do not sympathize with them. That's not point. Point would be triumph in debate by tossing enough --how do you say?-- feces at those on the other side, thereby smearing them and degrading debate venue. High five! It sure is easier than bringing data to the table. Goodbye. Jenqui![/borat_voice]If you have any facility with the search function here or at THR, you can find plenty of hard data & analysis documenting the downsides in posts I have made on this topic.
* When reading, imagine the words being read by Borat:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JFVN59sR4lY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NvQScRuZj9s&mode=related&search=
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 30, 2007, 12:26:06 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 30, 2007, 02:05:24 PM
i debunked the "crime stats" on thr at least once.
How? By disbelieving them?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 30, 2007, 02:34:18 PM
in a nut shell there is much noise generated on certain real classy websites about illegals constituting 35 percent of the prison pop. swure sounds ominous but as often is the case statistics need examination. if you take the number of these scary folks who are imprisoned for nothing other than immigration offenses the number drops dramatically. as a sise effect if you look at the percentage of latinos who are jailed for real crimes(things that would be a crime if they were born here. ) a funny thing happens they are under represented percentage wise. as a matter of fact a less myopic appraisal reveals that haoles are over represented and in certain areas greatly so. child molesters are extremely caucasian. so much so that a campaign to eliminate baby rapers could tout eliminating pale men as a methodology. sometimes it fun to trace how a story or legend makes its way from the worst sleazy websites to the ones that labor to maintain a veneer
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 30, 2007, 02:36:42 PM
Post by: roo_ster on September 30, 2007, 04:06:07 PM
Go ahead, search. Or, do you not think that consumption of taxes and the extraction thereof are a "downside?"
Still leaving a slime trail in your wake, I see...
Quote from: c-daddy
search some of the numerous closed threads on immigrant fear and loathing to find the more detailed posts
Nice.
Post by: MechAg94 on October 01, 2007, 09:12:21 AM
Post by: ilbob on October 01, 2007, 09:17:07 AM
Democrats want the extra votes they bring in.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 02, 2007, 05:18:45 AM
There are reasons why it is so hard to get a handle on the illegal immigrant problem. One of them is that there just are not enough Americans to do the work that the illegals do at a price that is acceptable to those paying the bill. Thats is why business owners are not real keen on enforcing the immigration laws.
Democrats want the extra votes they bring in.
Democrats want the extra votes they bring in.
That would explain why Spitzer wants to give illegals drivers' licenses in NY, probably as a favor to Hillary.
What's the first thing you need to vote?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on October 06, 2007, 04:25:29 AM
gotta love the genius supervisor who doesn't see it as a bad thing