• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Los Angeles to boycott Arizona over immigration law

Zyphlin said:
Then I guess our experiences shall have to differ. I can not imagine that every, single, solitary, construction job for every single country over the entire united states...to a singularity...are all going to vanish and cease to exist if there were no illegal immigrant workers. Which is what you're arguing. Actually, you're not even arguing that. Any illegal immigrant working in fast food...that job won't get filled, even if its at a 5:1 ratio. Any illegal immigrant working on a farm? That farm will apparently not hire anyone new, or will just close down. I can think of half a dozen bars immedietely in a few mile radious around my house whose barbacks are most likely illegal immigrants...you're suggseting that every one of those bars is going to close up shop, or just stop having barbacks. I've worked for a number of hotels where I've been very curious as to the citizenship of a good portion of the cleaning staff...apparently every one of those hotels are going to shut down, or just stop having cleaners. And on and on.

Sorry, I understand your experience in construction...and while I can not fathom every single construction compamy in the entire U.S. that hires any illegals all just closing shop...even if we assume that's true that is hardly all the jobs that illegals make up. What you're suggesting is that all sorts of business the entire united states over is going to shut down because of this to have literally "zero impact" on unemployment...that just doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Typically, companies there will be a mix of both legal and illegal employees.

The shops that would close are the ones that hire primarily illegals. The one's that hire primarily legals would be the ones to stay open.

The legals that lose their jobs when some shops close will replace the illegals lost in the other jobs.

This is because, on average, immigrants, both legal and illegal, will take less money than Americans and work harder than Americans at those prices.

I've been a barback and I've done construction. But I'm a rarity amongst natural-born citizens.

So I would expect some shifting of employment, but no actual gains in jobs.
 
RightinNYC said:
If we as a country believe that the minimum wage should be $7/hr, then every person working in this country should be earning $7/hr+.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for other industries and other places, but in Chicago, most illegals in construction make more than minimum wage.

Find me some Americans who'll work construction for $10 an hour, though, when they can get an easy job at some store for $7 an hour. I'll hire them right nw and start up my company again. I can't even find these people now, in this economy.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
My own city is making me puke. This is a city that feels the pinch because of illegal immigration probably even moreso than Arizona, and we're going to boycott a city that is doing something about it? Shame on my city council. They've run this city to the ground. We're about to go bankrupt and they're going to lecture Arizona about morality?
Click to expand...

It's more about support from Mexicans than right or wrong. IOW, just more politics.

ricksfolly
 
RightinNYC said:
Do you have a link for the claim that these two forces balance out? Nobody is denying that they exist, but I think it's pretty hard to argue that the introduction of a huge, unregulated labor force into an economy will not increase unemployment among the citizenry.
Click to expand...

In the long run it is entirely the case. Minimum wage has more of an effect on employment than we seem to think. There are payroll taxes, social security, healthcare, disability, etc. All of these things mean that a company has to pay much more than $7 an hour just to hire someone. Would you say that nearly everyone in this country would earn that much? Maybe 95%?

As for lingering unemployment, that's due to people not wanting to take a hit in wages. Extending unemployment benefits makes this effect even worse.

We ignore the fact that cheaper labor gives us cheap products. We don't get prosperity by making sure that everyone is paid a lot. Prosperity is in the things we produce, not our wages. As such, it is imperative that we focus on production and not wages.
 
RightinNYC said:
These impacts will certainly exist, but at the margins. Plenty of people already pay "full price" for lawn mowing or apple picking. The effects would be nowhere near as serious as you're claiming.
Click to expand...

Then if what you say is really what's happening, the inclusion of illegals would not have such a negative impact on costs of goods and services but now, DO have an impact on private and government services such that, by them being here and continuing to be illegally here - living, working (illegally), and using private and publicly available resourced paid by tax payers - they're getting more than they give. That actually provides MORE impetus in my view, to have these people deported.

By giving them a type of "amnesty" or registering them and giving them a legal pathway to citizenship - how does this help the stresses put on the system and the taxpayers? Isn't it a possibility that since they will be citizens that they no longer would want to work for $10 an hour but now demand $20. Or that they would apply more so for unemployment... like my dead beat cousins do as they claim they get more with unemployment than if they worked.
 
Tucker Case said:
I can't speak for other industries and other places, but in Chicago, most illegals in construction make more than minimum wage.

Find me some Americans who'll work construction for $10 an hour, though, when they can get an easy job at some store for $7 an hour. I'll hire them right nw and start up my company again. I can't even find these people now, in this economy.
Click to expand...

But the two aren't directly comparable, for the reasons that phattonez refers to below. If you're paying both illegals and a citizen $10/hr, the cost is much different - both you and the employee have to pay payroll/disability/etc. taxes. You also have to factor in the risk that a citizen will file a complaint/sue you for back wages, which is nearly non-existent with illegals.

phattonez said:
In the long run it is entirely the case. Minimum wage has more of an effect on employment than we seem to think. There are payroll taxes, social security, healthcare, disability, etc. All of these things mean that a company has to pay much more than $7 an hour just to hire someone. Would you say that nearly everyone in this country would earn that much? Maybe 95%?

As for lingering unemployment, that's due to people not wanting to take a hit in wages. Extending unemployment benefits makes this effect even worse.

We ignore the fact that cheaper labor gives us cheap products. We don't get prosperity by making sure that everyone is paid a lot. Prosperity is in the things we produce, not our wages. As such, it is imperative that we focus on production and not wages.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how this proves that there would be no impact on employment. Imagine that tomorrow morning, 100m people showed up who were willing to work 80 hr weeks for $.01/hr. Most citizens who could be replaced would be, thus increasing unemployment. The effect is obviously lessened here, but I don't see how it's non existent.

Ockham said:
Then if what you say is really what's happening, the inclusion of illegals would not have such a negative impact on costs of goods and services but now, DO have an impact on private and government services such that, by them being here and continuing to be illegally here - living, working (illegally), and using private and publicly available resourced paid by tax payers - they're getting more than they give. That actually provides MORE impetus in my view, to have these people deported.

By giving them a type of "amnesty" or registering them and giving them a legal pathway to citizenship - how does this help the stresses put on the system and the taxpayers? Isn't it a possibility that since they will be citizens that they no longer would want to work for $10 an hour but now demand $20. Or that they would apply more so for unemployment... like my dead beat cousins do as they claim they get more with unemployment than if they worked.
Click to expand...

I think that's more of an issue of our social service structure than of our labor market.
 
RightinNYC said:
But the two aren't directly comparable, for the reasons that phattonez refers to below. If you're paying both illegals and a citizen $10/hr, the cost is much different - both you and the employee have to pay payroll/disability/etc. taxes. You also have to factor in the risk that a citizen will file a complaint/sue you for back wages, which is nearly non-existent with illegals.
Click to expand...

Studies have shown that many, if not most illegals, are paying taxes to some degree, so the owner still puts in payroll taxes anyway. Most of the guys I knew who hired illegals payed the same to Uncle Sam whether it was a illegal or legal that they hired.
 
RightinNYC said:
I'm not sure how this proves that there would be no impact on employment. Imagine that tomorrow morning, 100m people showed up who were willing to work 80 hr weeks for $.01/hr. Most citizens who could be replaced would be, thus increasing unemployment. The effect is obviously lessened here, but I don't see how it's non existent.
Click to expand...

It's simple economics, even if we ignore the obvious exaggeration of the example. People will work wherever they can get the highest wages. Wages would go up quickly in this regard. Would people be out of work? Yeah, temporarily. However, those new workers would also be buying things, creating new jobs. So people will eventually get new jobs. We just need to make sure that people are at those jobs where their services are best used so that we get the most production. The more production, the lower the price of goods. That helps everyone, no matter what unemployment is.

There's a reason we don't follow the iron law of wages anymore.
 
Tucker Case said:
Studies have shown that many, if not most illegals, are paying taxes to some degree, so the owner still puts in payroll taxes anyway. Most of the guys I knew who hired illegals payed the same to Uncle Sam whether it was a illegal or legal that they hired.
Click to expand...

Anecdotally that may be true, but the way that the number of illegals is calculated is just worthless. They look at the census, see how many are here from out of the country, see how many are supposed to be here from out of the country, and then add 50% to determine the number of illegals here (from what I can remember). That may be the best way to count it, but it's completely imprecise, so most likely inaccurate.
 
phattonez said:
Anecdotally that may be true, but the way that the number of illegals is calculated is just worthless. They look at the census, see how many are here from out of the country, see how many are supposed to be here from out of the country, and then add 50% to determine the number of illegals here (from what I can remember). That may be the best way to count it, but it's completely imprecise, so most likely inaccurate.
Click to expand...

My experiential knowledge of the subject is not in conflict with those estimates. But that would only relate to construction specifically in Chicago.
 
phattonez said:
You don't need to carry an ID with you all the time. If you are an immigrant you do. If you are driving then you need it while driving. But just walking down the street, you don't need it. Don't commit a crime and you won't need it. Commit a crime and don't have your ID on you? They'll try to figure out who you are there.
Click to expand...

Just to fine that up a bit..... if you fit the description of someone suspected of committing a crime and the police stop you and ask for ID, you best be able to prove who you are or you will be entertained at the local lockup until they have a chance to run your prints. No prints you say?...... bummmerrrrr. You ain't going nowhere until they know who you are. Period, exclamation point, dot.

And they have 72 hours to do it in, so no real hurry. :2wave:
 
California has this on the books. someone should ask LA city council if they ever think about following the law. Seems the pot is calling the kettle black.

Calif. Penal Code Sec. 834b
Click the above link to look the code section up for yourself

834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.

(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:

(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.

(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States.

(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity.

(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.
 
mike2810 said:
California has this on the books. someone should ask LA city council if they ever think about following the law. Seems the pot is calling the kettle black.

Calif. Penal Code Sec. 834b
Click the above link to look the code section up for yourself

834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.

(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:

(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.

(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States.

(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity.

(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.
Click to expand...


Actually they do enforce it. ICE is very active in the Los Angeles County Jail.

The difference is, this applies to people who have actually been ARRESTED for a crime.
The Arizona law is much more far reaching and doesn't require the "probable cause" that is required to effect an arrest.
 
disneydude said:
The Arizona law is much more far reaching and doesn't require the "probable cause" that is required to effect an arrest.
Click to expand...

How does it not?!
 
disneydude said:
Actually they do enforce it. ICE is very active in the Los Angeles County Jail.

The difference is, this applies to people who have actually been ARRESTED for a crime.
The Arizona law is much more far reaching and doesn't require the "probable cause" that is required to effect an arrest.
Click to expand...

Wrong. LE cannot stop just anyone. The person must first be seen/caught for someother offense (speeding, public drunkeness, etc). And even then, LE must have some reason to suspect the person is illegal (no driver license, cant' communicate in english). Don't believe all the hype in the news. Read the law.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
How does it not?!
Click to expand...

The Arizona law does not require an arrest before they are allowed to search for identifying information.

The Arizona only requires "reasonable suspicion" which is required to justify a detention.

The reason why many believe that the Arizona law may not withstand Constitutional challenge is that the 4th Amendment does not allow a search absent probable cause.
 
mike2810 said:
Wrong. LE cannot stop just anyone. The person must first be seen/caught for someother offense (speeding, public drunkeness, etc). And even then, LE must have some reason to suspect the person is illegal (no driver license, cant' communicate in english). Don't believe all the hype in the news. Read the law.
Click to expand...

I have read the law. There is no requirement that they be stopped for some other offense.
 
disneydude said:
The Arizona law does not require an arrest before they are allowed to search for identifying information.

The Arizona only requires "reasonable suspicion" which is required to justify a detention.

The reason why many believe that the Arizona law may not withstand Constitutional challenge is that the 4th Amendment does not allow a search absent probable cause.
Click to expand...

No, the person must be in the act of committing another crime recognized in Arizona besides this one.
 
disneydude said:
I have read the law. There is no requirement that they be stopped for some other offense.
Click to expand...

You are aware that the law has been amended, haven't you? And you are aware that there are different versions of the law, right?
 
phattonez said:
No, the person must be in the act of committing another crime recognized in Arizona besides this one.
Click to expand...

No. Perhaps that is what Fox News wants people to believe. That is untrue. There is no requirement that the person be committing a crime in Arizona.
 
phattonez said:
You are aware that the law has been amended, haven't you? And you are aware that there are different versions of the law, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, I Am. The amendment improved the law but only slightly.

Under the old version "reasonable suspicion" that the person might be undocumented could be the sole reason for the detention and search.
Under the new version, if can't be the sole reason, but can be a reason to be considered among others.
The new version still invites racial profiling, although it is not quite as bad as the first version.

Neither, however, requires probable cause and neither requires a crime be committed in order for the officer to detain and search.
 
disneydude said:
The Arizona law does not require an arrest before they are allowed to search for identifying information.

The Arizona only requires "reasonable suspicion" which is required to justify a detention.

The reason why many believe that the Arizona law may not withstand Constitutional challenge is that the 4th Amendment does not allow a search absent probable cause.
Click to expand...

disneydude said:
I have read the law. There is no requirement that they be stopped for some other offense.
Click to expand...

disneydude said:
No. Perhaps that is what Fox News wants people to believe. That is untrue. There is no requirement that the person be committing a crime in Arizona.
Click to expand...

*SIGH* Here we go again.

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch.

And, this has already been to the Supreme Court:

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry stop". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops.

The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).
 
rivrrat said:
*SIGH* Here we go again.

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch.

And, this has already been to the Supreme Court:

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry stop". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops.

The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).
Click to expand...

What you are missing is that a "Terry Stop" is limited to a pat-down for weapons and the police can only engage in a pat-down IF they have specific and articulable facts supporting a belief that the person might be armed.
A "Terry Stop" does not give the officer the right to engage in a more intrusive search.

Yes...if a person is stopped for a crime the police can ask for identification.

But the Arizona law does not require that the person be stopped for a crime.
 
disneydude said:
But the Arizona law does not require that the person be stopped for a crime.
Click to expand...

But it does. Read other versions of the law and the amendment.
 
phattonez said:
Then this city would go bankrupt even faster. Do it. I'm tired of this ignorant city council.
Click to expand...
I would like to, but can't do anything these days without protest in one form or another. This country has lost it's senses and the time to pay the piper is getting closer. It appears to me that those who oppose this law are either ignorant of the law, don't live in Arizona, like cheap labor, need votes for the left, enjoy anarchy, crime, bankrupt hospitals, people that smile at you and agree with everything you say etc...

Yes we have a problem, we have a gaping hole in the side of our over crowded ship and water is pouring in...**** we sinking. One would imagine that we should patch the hole first so we can fix the engine and then figure out who the stowaway's are and in that order. A very simple process:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom