Drew Dowdell

The difference there is that the police detained that person with cause. The new Arizona law allows for an officer to use any suspicion they have of the person being illegal..... which is based on..... what criteria again?

If universal health coverage was part of the longstanding liberal agenda to implement a European-style welfare state in America, Arizona's tough new anti-immigrant law represents the conservative agenda to install a European-style surveillance state. Indeed, the very same conservatives who could not find words strong enough to condemn the Europeanization of America under ObamaCare are now greeting the Arizona law--which will require residents to prove their lawful status to authorities on demand--with a cheerful smile and a shrug.

Oh, I have lots. My entire first floor is covered in braided rugs that were hand made by my grandmother in the 50s. They are priceless to me. I grew up playing on those rugs. The lines on them were the highways for my hotwheels cars to drive on. I have some of my great grandfather's furniture and a clock of his. I have numerous articles that he collected from his round the world travels.

I think they are saying that it's unconstitutional to require citizens to carry their passport.

My only problem with the post is this: For Corn and Soybean ethanol, this is quite possibly true. However, not so much with algae, kelp or waste sources of ethanol. The issue is the Corn lobby got it's talons into energy legislation.

For as divergent as your and my views are, I find it interesting that we both read that blog. I've followed it since before the 2004 election.

Its there. If you make a bunch of posts in quick succession they get merged together into one automatically.

No. I want to remove the incentive for them to be here regardless of their immigration status. I'm happy that there is plenty of incentive for them to be properly naturalize or documented. If they want to come here and work, I'm all for it...... just follow the laws.

You and I are talking two different things. If you want to relax immigration policy and allow more people in legally, I'm all for it. Give them worker's visas, register them, document them, whatever make them legal. Then pay them at least the mandated minimum wage and force employers to check for eligibility or be catastrophically fined. I'm not against them working here..... just do it legally. If there need to be a process change for them to be legal, then fine... but make the process efficient and get them documented.

Because employers are willing to look the other way on eligibility. Let me throw this one back at you...... should farm owners be allowed to employ 12 year olds to work in their farm 50 hours a week for $2 an hour just because they found a 12 year old willing to do the labor?

Merry April 28th....

Where, in any of my posts, did I mention deporting them? Not a single single post did I say to deport them. I am saying that we should place financially catastrophic fines on employers so that the demand for illegal work will dry up.... If they want to work here, I'm all for it. Do it legally and get paid at least minimum wage.

Minimum wage was set up for a reason. We shouldn't be abusing people's misfortune just so we can buy strawberries at $1.99/lb no matter how willing they are to let us do it.

So what you're saying is that companies will do what they can to thwart the law (in this case immigration law) in order to benefit their own bottom line? Say it ain't so Joe! The typical migrant workers work for less than minimum wage. As far as your question.... 1,000 people camped out in Queens, NY over night in the rain to apply for a single elevator mechanic's job. You'd be surprised what people would be willing to do.

I think a lot of the draw is the employers in the US who are willing to hire illegals. If the illegals can't get hired because they are illegal, they'll go home on their own or they won't come in the first place. I'm surprised at you.... I thought a "market based" solution would be right up your ally. Forcing employers to comply with the law or be severely punished would dry up demand for illegal work. The ones who want to stay can work on getting their citizenship legally. I'm thinking a fine of something like 20 times market wage (or minimum wage whichever is higher) for as long as the employee worked there (or 6 months worth of 40 hour a week salary, whichever is longer) That'll make even someone with a payroll like Walmart stop and think twice about verifying employment eligibility and it will certainly stop illegal day laborers.

I have no problem with people working. Do it legally. If you own a farm and need people to pick your strawberries, you need to pay your workers at least the federal or state minimum wage and they must show documents as being legally allowed to work in the U.S. I don't care if your workers come from Mexico, Bagdad, Detroit, or some other war zone. Follow the laws.

If they want to come here legally, that's fine. But illegals are sucking up labor that could be done by people here legally and depressing the wages of everyone around them. Make the enforcement against hiring illegals so harsh and so often enforced that people will start checking documents for employment and paying the minimum wage because it will cost too much to get caught. We need a way of verifying that documents are valid as well.

Did you read the fine print Moltar?

and if we financially punish employers in such a catastrophic way so as to prevent the hiring of illegals, the suction will stop.

Agreed. We should impose financially catastrophic penalties on the people who hire illegals.... even if it's just to do once a week yard work. That will cut the cord on the vacuum cleaner in the first place.

My gut is telling me no.

Unfortunately, for me, this is a definite "NO". It's in really good shape for a $1900 car, but it's been heavily smoked in.... even the rear ash trays are full... the ash trays have ash trays. Never been a smoker, never will. I don't think I could ever get it clean enough. At this point, unless I were to gut the interior, the only thing this Buick is good for now is hauling slag.

I agree, but in this case, I'm looking for any suggestions as to what to look at on these cars.