Conference back40::soapbox

    
    hell yes

 Absotively posilutely

| <<< Note 687.0 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>


| Among other things, this bill increases funding for border patrols and 
| enforcement, makes illegals ineligible for various federal benefits, and 
| frees states to provide or refuse state benefits and services, including 
| education, as they see fit.


	I like the bill that is described here. As long as it just deals with
illegals.


Glen

  .4  that's what i was gonna say - it's a no-brainer.  rep on CNN
      this morning was arguing with a woman who thought we shouldn't
      be cracking down on 5-year olds, denying them an education,
      blah, blah.  he was likening it to inviting someone who broke
      into your house to sit down and have dinner with you.

    It's the classic liberal argument- no matter what people do society
    should not punish them if it will have an adverse effect on their
    children. We can't take steps to establish bounds on the welfare state,
    because we are "ripping food out of the mouths of children." Same with
    taking steps to reduce illegal immigration. Why not give each illegal
    alien child $1M? After all, denying them that adversely affects them.
    
     It's all a load of crap. Parents who do not want their children to
    feel the adverse effects of their choices ought to make better choices.

    I guess I'm the only one who disagrees. Reason? This country was
    founded on the courage of those who abandoned all that they had and
    risked their lives to come to this land. The businesses and values that 
    they generated individually outweigh all of the benefits of all past and 
    present politicians combined. Of course the government should not be 
    supporting them. The government shouldn't be supporting any of us. The 
    immigrants are not to blame. The armed enforcers of the INS, who never 
    have to answer to the American citizens, ravish hard-working, value
    producing workers and their families. The INS expands their own power
    and livlihoods by attacking America's most competitive workers of the
    past and future. Immigrants have been the backbone of competitive
    growth and economic prosperity in America. The halt of immigration is
    the halting of this prosperity.
                        

Horse foofey, Tom.

There are legal channels through which one can immigrate to this country.
If those channels are too constrained, then the appropriate solution is
to relax them, not to ignore them.

    Re .8
    
    Legal shmegal, it's government control pure and simple. Something you're
    usually against.

    
    
    
    .0 probably isn't strong enough.
    
    

>    Legal shmegal, it's government control pure and simple. Something you're
>    usually against.

Well, then it sounds like what you're advocating is "let anybody in, in 
whatever numbers they choose, however they do it, and we'll foot the bill
for the consequences by absorbing them as citizens".

Sure it's government control. We made some decisions in this country that
we want to limit the influx of immigrants. If we don't still believe that
to be the case (I do, but you apparently don't) then the thing to do is
to raise the quota numbers or eliminate them, but not keep them in place
and turn a blind eye while people make fools of us. If you want to make
a case that we shouldn't control immigration, then do so. But don't tell
me it's "OK" to wetback it across the Rio Grande.

  .9  which syllable of "illegal" don't you understand? <-- isn't that
      how it goes?

      seriously, don't you see any problem with there being huge
      great influxes of people into a nation that's not being given
      a chance to absorb at least the sociological effects?

    
    My grandparents were among the bunch who in the early 1920's WAITED
    THEIR TURN to arrive, and had to show some means of support before they
    were allowed into the country.  I see no reason to expect otherwise
    now.
    
    I guess it goes with the reason for having borders in the first
    place (After all, we fought Iraq -- presumably -- to defend Kuwait's
    national sovereignty.  Why shouldn't we do the same for our own?).
    

    >Well, then it sounds like what you're advocating is "let anybody in, in 
    >whatever numbers they choose, however they do it, and we'll foot the bill
    >for the consequences by absorbing them as citizens".

    If you think this is what I advocate then you didn't read my note.
    
    

     On the one hand, you argue that (essentially) we should have no
    control whatsoever over immigration. When confronted with the
    practicality of providing services for such an uncontrolled stream of
    people you claim that we shouldn't be providing welfare for anybody.
    Aside from the political reality that providing some sort of safety net
    for the poor is a national priority, you don't address the other needs
    for services that an unbridled influx of people creates. Like schools,
    a fire and police coverage. Sewage disposal, etc.
    
     This doesn't even begin to address differentiating between people who
    just want to immigrate and people who want to sneak into our country
    and engage in terrorism.
    
     You're way off on this one, Tom. We have to control immigration
    somehow because our infrastructure simply cannot support uncontrolled
    immigration.

    (Is there another Tom in this discussion?  I'm in favor of enforcing
    laws agains illegal immigration).

    Isn't Ralston's first name Tom?

Me too.

    
      Delblasto's an Uncle Tom ?
    
      bb

>     is it wise, or not ?  Leaving completely aside the question of
>     LEGAL immigration, is ILLEGAL immigration worth curtailing ?

Indisputably. It's a no-brainer.

If Slick doesn't sign it, he's an even bigger idiot than I thought. And
Dole can make hay with it.

Well, actually I did, Tom. You indicated that you don't want government
control on immigration. Isn't that (uncontrolled immigration) what you
get once the controls are eliminated?

Government controls on immigration, and enforcement of those controls is
appropriate as long as we as a nation decide that we want to restrict
immigration. Should we decide we no longer want that, then fine - do
away with the limitation. In the mean time, while the limitations
stand, failure to work within the system is illegal and deserves the
punishments incumbent in so doing.    

You can't restrict immigration by law and then propose ignoring your 
own laws. Well, clearly you _can_, but it makes you look the fool.

So what do we want? Enforcement or relaxation? I'll take door number 1.

    Tom signing in. Sorry I haven't been here. CX01, Core 6 all moved to
    Core 3 on Friday. Just got a lat line a few minutes ago and my e-net is
    still down.
    
    Something to think about, I think it arrogant to think that free
    immigration will cause an influx of people into the country. If the
    message were that the United States was not a welfare state, the only
    people to immigrate her would be those looking for a future that they
    can control. This would be an asset to the country as a whole. The
    welfare state philosopy and government controlled education attract
    those who want a handout.
                                                              

Many folks don't come over for the welfare, but to find jobs not available
back home. Opening the borders would solicit a flood of these people.

	re .23

    immigration will cause an influx of people into the country. If the
    message were that the United States was not a welfare state, the only
    people to immigrate her would be those looking for a future that they
    can control. This would be an asset to the country as a whole. The
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

	What about the criminals and other lowlife that other countries would
	gladly dump on us if there were no controls on immigration? Not to
	mention those who would come of their own accord.

	John

    
    
    whoops, meant re .22
    

       >What about the criminals and other lowlife that other countries would
       >gladly dump on us if there were no controls on immigration? Not to
       >mention those who would come of their own accord.
    
    In the present state we are in, welfare to anyone you whines,
    government controls over business startups, subjective political policy
    laws, this may or may not be a problem. However, free immigration like
    this country had in the beginning did not produce this affect. Why,
    because people were free. They were held accountable for their
    decisions, their successes and their failures. Government did not
    control their every move or use non-sequitur logic to convince us of
    nonexistent problems.

   re: .26
    
    >because people were free. They were held accountable for their
    >decisions, their successes and their failures. 

    Try convincing, oh, say, half the population of the USA to believe that
    today...
    

    >Try convincing, oh, say, half the population of the USA to believe that
    >today...
    
    True enough, shows that the politicians in this country have been
    successful is stealing our lives and our freedoms.

    
>    True enough, shows that the politicians in this country have been
>    successful is stealing our lives and our freedoms.

	i still have mine.  nyah nyah.

    <--- It's an illusion (at least the "freedom" part).

  .30  cow doots.

    steve, you're the illusion!

    >i still have mine.  nyah nyah.
    
    Can't tell from where I sit.   :)

But - it's a long way from Colo Spgs to Andover, Tom.

    Am I correct in thinking,that in Jimmy Carter`s day,he let let free
    immigration to Cubans?
    
    And Castro emptied his prisons and asylums and shipped them over to the
    USA?
    
    ho!ho!
    

re: .35

Another non sequitur point.

Those considered criminals by the Cuban government (dictatorship) could very 
well be productive citizens in a free country. Did crimes committed by Cubans 
rise after Jimma let them in? I think not. Ho, ho back at ya.

Individuals should be judged on individual accomplishments or lack of, not 
on the branding of a corrupt government or clique organization. The old Soviet
Union also had many "criminals". America had Ben Franklin, Tom Jefferson and 
the boys, all considered criminals by the British. It is the same with the
present government control of immigration and most things in our lives. They
tell us that they are keeping out the "bad" people who are criminals, will
steal jobs from American workers or drain the taxpayer through welfare. All
these are manipulative non sequiturs used to convince the public that we need
agencies like the INS to protect us. All the while agencies like the INS, 
FDA, IRS, DEA, FTC, SEC, BATF and EPA are stagnating human and economic 
advancement while increasing their own power and justifying their bogus jobs.

>Those considered criminals by the Cuban government (dictatorship) could very 
>well be productive citizens in a free country. Did crimes committed by Cubans 
>rise after Jimma let them in? I think not. Ho, ho back at ya.

Crime in Florida increased substantially after the Mariela boatlift.  Many
of those released by Castro _were_ common criminals.

    Well,if you think rapists and murderers are a good thing,then so be
    it.
    
    Extreme naievity on the part of Jimmy Carter if you ask me.
    
    
    
    

    Re: .37 and .38
    
    I'm sure you both have facts for your assertions that crime increased
    in Miami due to the Cuban exiles and those exiled were rapists and 
    murderers. I know you wouldn't make blanket statements like these without 
    having the data readily available. Of course we all know that what our
    government tells us is always the truth.
    :-)
    

    
    	I thought crime increased due to the "right to carry" laws
    	being in effect.
    

    hold on... i believe Mr. Ralston asserted that crime HAD NOT increased.
    
    i believe the fact finding "ball" is in his court.

re: .41
    
    >hold on... i believe Mr. Ralston asserted that crime HAD NOT increased.
    >i believe the fact finding "ball" is in his court.
    
    Nice deflection, but wrong. I asked a specific question and then 
    voiced an opinion.
    
    See?
    
"Did crimes committed by Cubans rise after Jimma let them in? I think not."
    
    Then the assertion was made as follows: 

>Crime in Florida increased substantially after the Mariela boatlift.  Many
>of those released by Castro _were_ common criminals.
    
    The burden of proof lies with the one making the positive assertion. No
    one is under obligation to prove that someone's assertion is wrong. It
    is automatically wrong unless or until proof is provided. 

Tom, refer to practically any article on the aftermath of the boatlift.

    Fine, at least give me one article, so that I don't have to do all the 
    work to prove someone else's assertion.
    
    I'm busy, even though it doesn't look like it.  :)

  .45 when have you known gerald to be wrong?  that should
      count for something.

    hee hee

  .47  hee hee what?  i was serious.  some people don't say things
       unless they know what they're talking about.  gerald's one
       of them.  (not to put any pressure on you or anything, gerald.) ;>

    Oh come onb Diane....Gerald's been wrong before.  Sorry to burst your
    bubble!

I admit it.  I have been wrong on occasion.  {sob} {head hung in shame}

  >  Sorry to burst your
  >  bubble!

	you haven't, trust me.

    And maybe he is right this time. 

>    And maybe he is right this time. 

	i'd be willing to put some money on it, i can tell you
	that much. ;>

    .36 "Did crimes committed by Cubans rise after Jimma let them in. I
    think not." tag, you're it Mr. Ralston.

    re: .54
    
    yawn, see .43

    
      Well, Kaliph is torn by yet another videotaped police stick
     incident.  Even Guv Wilson is commenting.  After 70 mile highspeed
     chase, numerous cops stopped truckload of 29 illegal aliens and
     beat two in the cab to a bloody pulp.  All over the news.
    
      bb

    
    The deputies should be punished severely, and the illegal aliens
    deported.
    

  "bloody pulp"?  i must have missed that part.  they beat them
  excessively, yes.  should be fired immediately.

    
      My dear Lady Di - it's an expression.
    
      bb

 Agreed.  Unfortunately, while the cops will be punished (and should be)
 the illegals will become heros and sue everybody and their uncle live
 the American dream..




 Jim

    
>      My dear Lady Di - it's an expression.

    yes, i know.  one i'd expect from the tabloids, but not from
    thou, frankly.

    
      Sorry, left my Reader's Digest Guide to Picturesque Speech home.
    
      "beaten senseless" ?  "beaten unmercifully" ?  "badly beaten" ?
      "beaten within an inch of their lives" ?  "brutally beaten" ?
      "beaten indisciminately by jackbooted government thugs" ?
    
      I mean, help me out here...
    
      bb

    
    Re .62
    
    All of the above!
    
    ed

    Not "badly beaten". Ambiguous.

    
      "remorselessly clubbed" ?
    
      bb

    That'll do it.

    How about, "beaten like a rented mule"?

	no, you're right, Billbob, people use that sort of 
	exaggerated rhetoric all the time.  why should you be any
	different?  sorry my expectations were too high.

      ___                       ___                                
     /\__\                     /|  |                               
    /:/ _/_       ___         |:|  |           ___           ___   
   /:/ /\  \     /\__\        |:|  |          /\__\         /|  |  
  /:/ /::\  \   /:/__/      __|:|__|         /:/  /        |:|  |  
 /:/_/:/\:\__\ /::\  \     /::::\__\_____   /:/__/         |:|  |  
 \:\/:/ /:/  / \/\:\  \__  ~~~~\::::/___/  /::\  \       __|:|__|  
  \::/ /:/  /   ~~\:\/\__\     |:|~~|     /:/\:\  \     /::::\  \  
   \/_/:/  /       \::/  /     |:|  |     \/__\:\  \    ~~~~\:\  \ 
     /:/  /        /:/  /      |:|__|          \:\__\        \:\__\
     \/__/         \/__/       |/__/            \/__/         \/__/
      ___                       ___           ___     
     /\  \                     /\  \         /\__\    
     \:\  \       ___          \:\  \       /:/ _/_   
      \:\  \     /\__\          \:\  \     /:/ /\__\  
  _____\:\  \   /:/__/      _____\:\  \   /:/ /:/ _/_ 
 /::::::::\__\ /::\  \     /::::::::\__\ /:/_/:/ /\__\
 \:\~~\~~\/__/ \/\:\  \__  \:\~~\~~\/__/ \:\/:/ /:/  /
  \:\  \        ~~\:\/\__\  \:\  \        \::/_/:/  / 
   \:\  \          \::/  /   \:\  \        \:\/:/  /  
    \:\__\         /:/  /     \:\__\        \::/  /   
     \/__/         \/__/       \/__/         \/__/    
      ___           ___           ___           ___           ___     
     /\__\         /\  \         /\  \         /\  \         /\__\    
    /:/ _/_        \:\  \       /::\  \       /::\  \       /:/ _/_   
   /:/ /\  \        \:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\__\     /:/ /\__\  
  /:/ /::\  \   _____\:\  \   /:/ /::\  \   /:/ /:/  /    /:/ /:/  /  
 /:/_/:/\:\__\ /::::::::\__\ /:/_/:/\:\__\ /:/_/:/__/___ /:/_/:/  /   
 \:\/:/ /:/  / \:\~~\~~\/__/ \:\/:/  \/__/ \:\/:::::/  / \:\/:/  /    
  \::/ /:/  /   \:\  \        \::/__/       \::/~~/~~~~   \::/__/     
   \/_/:/  /     \:\  \        \:\  \        \:\~~\        \:\  \     
     /:/  /       \:\__\        \:\__\        \:\__\        \:\__\    
     \/__/         \/__/         \/__/         \/__/         \/__/    

'Spose they'll be able to regather that Simi County jury to hear the case
when the cops are brought up on charges?

    Re .67:
    
    They were "Kinged".
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    They deserved it!

Right here is where I open yet another of my diatribes on race. Unsolicited.
.72 had nothing to do with it.

    re .72
    
        I heard they were driving crazy and throwing things at motorists.
    I agree.

>    They deserved it!

Bull chite, Buck. What they deserved was to be arrested, tried, convicted and 
deported. Nobody deserves to be have the snot beaten out of them by a cop.
If the had physically attacked the cops, that might be a different matter.
but even if they threw crap at the cruiser in pursuit, once they were pulled
over a beating was unnecessary.

    I don't know why but somehow I feel like I've just been insulted.
    

    Yeah the nmnetal they threw at them was aluminum cans, beer or soda
    according to the Denver post.  Really dangerous stuff.  
    
    Beating the crap out a people is inexcusable, and doesn't make the cops
    or law enforcement in LA look particularly credible. 
    
    

>    Yeah the nmnetal they threw at them was aluminum cans, beer or soda
>    according to the Denver post.  Really dangerous stuff.  
 

     I'm not a physics expert, but I suspect that an object hurled out
     of a vehicle travelling at a high rate of speed becomes a bit more
     dangerous as a result.  Not to mention that it is reported that
     the suspect vehicle was weaving in and out of lanes and had sideswiped
     a couple cars.

     Reading the sob stories of these folks "coming the US to find work
     to support their families, I can't help but wonder why they didn't
     simply enter the country via the legal means.




 >     Beating the crap out a people is inexcusable, and doesn't make the cops
 >   or law enforcement in LA look particularly credible. 
  

      absolutely.  
    

>>     I'm not a physics expert, but I suspect that an object hurled out
>>     of a vehicle travelling at a high rate of speed becomes a bit more
>>     dangerous as a result.
    
    Actually, aluminum cans hurled out the window of a speeding car at
    another speeding car would have little effect (except maybe to scare
    the bejezzus out of someone). 
    
    There are two situations where hurling can be dangerous; Moving vehicle
    throws object at standing/walking/still person or other non-moving vehicle,
    and a person drops/throws hard object off of bridge onto/at moving vehicle.
    Damage done is still dependent upon object hurled.
    
    ...on the other hand... if the aluminum cans were full...
    
    Wouldn't that be called a 'Beer Bash'?
    

    
      Yes, .79 would be correct, because the relative speed determines
     the momentum.  If two cars and an object hurled between them at 5 mhp
     are ALL going in the same direction at 100 mph, it's the same as
     all of them stationary.  Of course, if you threw an empty beer can
     at an ONCOMING car, that's quite another matter !
    
      bb

 Did the news helicopter get tape of the whole chase, or just the beatings?




Jim

	Do they not have a deposit on aluminum cans out there? 

    
    	And don't they know how much a US nickel is worth in Mexico?
    

    
    >Eighteen men in the truck who were detained after the chase, all
    >identified as illegal immigrants from Mexico, were released Wednesday from 
    >a federal detention center in Los Angeles.  They will be given ``voluntary 
    >departure'' status, which allows them to remain in the country for six 
    >months. 
    
    They should be deported immediately.  This is ridiculous.
    
    

 Wonder how much they'll feast from the public trough in that 6 months.




Jim

  i might start parking my car illegally, and then insisting that i
  be given "voluntary departure" status, if caught.  i'll volunteer to
  leave right after we pay the check.  yes, i think this might work out
  well.

 Better yet..why not enter Mexico illegally, lead the police on a 70 mile
 chase at high speeds (while throwing stuff at them and sideswiping cars)
 and ask Mexico for "voluntary departure status"..I'm certain they'll be
 quite pleased to go along with that!



 Jim

    re: repliez around .73 and on
    
    Oh, lighten up!  Didn't you see my smiley?
    
    Fact is -- not stopping for a police officer is a misdermeanor offense
    at best.  You can be ticketed for it, but NOT arrested!  That can only
    happen if something else happens ... and of course, if a police officer
    WANTS to arrest you, there are subtle ways to make people make this
    happen.
    
    Truth being, like the incident with that woman in South Carolina (who
    was dragged from her car and held at gun point for refusing to stop
    for an officer), the actions taken were not in accordance with proper
    police proceedures.
    
    Personally, however, I think the U.S. takes far to light a stance on
    the illegal immigration problem.  Mr. Buchanan was right on target 
    with this for my money...

    Throwing something at a police officer (i.e. assualt), leaving the
    scene of an accident, etc... are felonies.

    
    >>The woman was charged with no crime and was able to document the
    >>origin of the money.  The cops kept it anyway.
    
    this floored me...tho i suppose it really shouldn't have surprised
    me...
    
    

    
    If what I heard on the radio today is accurate, The driver and
    passenger inside the cab through nothing at the cops. However,
    the driver was guilty of exceeding the speed limit to a top speed
    of approximately 100MPH, deliberately pushing other cars off 
    the road to deter the cops, and failing to stop for over 60 miles.
    
    The pickup bed was full of people throwing full beverage cans,
    bricks, and the tailgate of the pickup truck at the cops and other
    vehicles on the road.
    
    These folks were a collective hazard deliberately trying to escape
    the law by hurting anyone in their way.
    
    These people should be in jail, every single one of them.
    
    Doug.
    

         I don't know, I wasn't there.
    -ss

    threw ...

    
    But they should be in jail in Mexico.
    
    ed

    What Mexican laws have they broken?  If I go to Canada, and speed, and
    toss things at the O.P.P., what crime have I committed in the U.S.?  Is
    there a law that says we need to be on our best behavior while abroad? 
    

    Brian, you wouldn't make a very convincing broad.

    You haven't seen my *other* closet, Glenn.  

    
    	There must be some huge skeletons in there, eh?
    

	Is Brian coming out of the closet??????

    Funny, I don't remember seeing the first closet.
    
    Musta been one hell of a box tappin' party eh?

>However, the driver was guilty of exceeding the speed limit to a top speed
>of approximately 100MPH, deliberately pushing other cars off the road 

I deal with that every morning during my commute.

Thanks to some of o'the good boxers, I now know how I should deal with it.

Happy Motoring!

    
    What I meant by the fact that they should be in jail in Mexico is that
    they SHOULDN'T be jailed in this country. Actually I don't care if they
    are jailed in Mexico, I do care that they are NOT jailed in the US
    
    ed

Heard something on the radio that at least one of the beatees has files
a $10 milion lawsuit.

    when in Rome...

    Agreed.  We should not have to foot the bill for their misadventure
    including providing shelter and three squares while they are
    incarcerated.  

    i saw that truck on tv. unless there waas some serious mill work under
    that hood i have a hard time believing that you could get a 100mph out
    of it.

    Mebbe they went downhill for a coupla miles. :-)

re:.-1

Not to mention the fact that, with 21 illegals in the back of an open pickup
it's surprising the things being thrown (if indeed anything was thrown) weren't
themselves.

    But the LA police never lie, just like the Hyundai that was "clocked"
    doing over 90 with large heavy people in it.  Face it, allowing police
    to beat people with impunity, even when they are on the ground and
    handcuffed, never mind pulling someone through an open window by their
    hair when they aren't resisting is not something I was raised to believ
    america stood for.  It also explains why LA has such a high budget for
    police-abuse settlements.
    
    meg

    
    	This reminds me of "Silent Night, Deadly Night", when the
    	cops are staking out an orphanage waiting for "killer Santa"
    	to show up and mutilate everybody.  "Santa" approaches the
    	place, ignoring the shouts from the police, and when he
    	doesn't stop within 5 seconds they blast him.
    
    	Unfortunately, it WAS the expected Santa ... a local deaf
    	minister.
    

 <----Deb...howzabout cleanin' that one up?

    Meg, Your right!! L.A. police are a real whole some lot.:) Gives reason
    to why O.J. is inocent.:)
    
    

    Give up Deb,
    
    some of us just fat-finger too often to worry about correcting it, or
    is it korrckting it?
    
    Wholesome  NNTM
    
    meg

    they still deserved it.

	Buck's back! 

    
    	Don't forget Buck's front, Glen.
    

<---that's a loaded statement!

    
	                /////
 	               ( oo )                Buck's Back!!!
	  _________oOO___<>___OOo__________

    You folks are cruel!

    Yeah....LEAVE BUCK ALONE!!!!

    
    	You mean
    
    	LEAVE HIM ... THE BUCK ... ALONE!!
    

    Bucking the odds?

    
    	No, you're thinking of Glen.
    

	:-)

$10M lawsuit? Excuse me? Since when do illegal immigrants have the right
to bring suit in American courts?

| <<< Note 687.127 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

| $10M lawsuit? Excuse me? Since when do illegal immigrants have the right
| to bring suit in American courts?

	Since they have American lawyers...:-)

	If you were beaten in another country, wouldn't you be able to sue??

>If you were beaten in another country, wouldn't you be able to sue??

If I were an illegal immigrant I certainly wouldn't expect to be able to, Glen.
And you can bet your life that if I were an illegal immigrant there wouldn't
be anybody in the State Department seeing to it that I had such a right, either.

>	If you were beaten in another country, wouldn't you be able to sue??


        Glen..here's an experiment you can do in your spare time..first, get
        an old truck..then, cross the border illegally into Mexico and engage
        the police in a 70 mile high speed chase, tossing stuff at the cops
        and weave in and out of the lanes sideswiping cars while your at it..
        then, once they've stopped you, let them beat you (assuming they
         don't just shoot you)..then, see if you can sue..


   Let us know what you find out.


   I suggest they let these folks wounds heal, then escort them back to the 
   border and tell them "buenos dias"..then, fire the cops and maybe give
   them some jail time.



 Jim

...unfortunately, I'm sure there's a TV movie already in the works

	Jim, you know....you have a way of making a point. I couldn't stop
laughing when I read your example. I agree with your conclusion.


Glen

 From what I heard this morning, there is footage available of the entire chase,
 which shows the undocumented immigrants weaving in and out of traffic, ramming
 other cars on the road and tossing stuff at the cops (pieces of the cap of the
 pickup truck).  I've seen the beating several times, but never the entire
 footage.

 Again, the cops were out of line..but I still say these guys should be escorted
 back to their homeland once their wounds are healed.


 Jim

	They should sue them for 10 mil, canceling out their 10 mil....and then
we'll just have a bunch of people in court, probably on tv, for a few of the
summer months!

    Meg,

.77>    Beating the crap out a people is inexcusable, and doesn't make the cops
.77>    or law enforcement in LA look particularly credible. 
    
.110>    But the LA police never lie, just like the Hyundai that was "clocked"
			:
.110>    It also explains why LA has such a high budget for police-abuse
.110>    settlements. 
    
    The LAPD and Los Angeles have little to nothing to do with this
    incident.  The RIVERSIDE police, from RIVERSIDE COUNTY were the ones
    who beat the illegals.  And to further your geography lesson, LA and
    Riverside counties are not adjacent to each other.

    -- Dave

    .131
    
    ...and the TV movie will be about the harrowing tale of the "poor
    refugees"... yeah, can't wait til it comes on so I can turn the
    channel.

    And here I was hoping we only had one set of mean cops in southern CA. 
    Is there something in the air or water out there?
    
    

    There is only one set of mean cops in southern CA. They are the ones
    wearing navy blue. /hth

>    There is only one set of mean cops in southern CA. They are the ones
>    wearing navy blue. /hth

    I thought the latest incident had them wearing beige.  I could be
    wrong.

    -- Dave

    Dave,
    
    You're not wrong, the uniforms were beige.  These were *NOT* LAPD or
    Riverside PD....they are/were employed by the LA County Sheriff's
    Dept.  There was a 3rd officer at the scene, California Highway
    Patrol; on the audio that is now available to accompany what we
    were seeing the CHPs officer yelled to the other sheriff's deputies
    to stop hitting the two illegals who were on the ground.  The the
    CHPs officer was heard telling his boss that "yeah, there are
    choppers overhead, they've probably got it all on film".
    
    I believe it was the CHP officer who spoke to them in Spanish; at
    that time they two illegals stopped struggling.  I agree with others
    who say there's no excuse for the beatings, but let's get real here
    folks!!  A $10MIL law suit......these folks were fleeing because
    they had crossed the border illegally and they knew they'd been
    caught!!  If the US is stupid enough to allow this lawsuit to proceed,
    we'll see this episode re-enacted at least once a week!!
    
    Fire the two officers, provide medical treatment for those beaten
    and then return them to Mexico.
    
    An answer to whoever asked what if the situation had been reversed
    (assuming someone in the US would pull the same stunt after crossing
    illegally into Mexico).  There would be no film at 11, the perps woulld
    be jailed probably never to be seen again.  You can be darn sure there
    would be no lawsuit against the Mexican officials.
    

                [ARIZONA REPUBLIC February 20, 1994]
                HOW THE COPS CAN SEIZE YOUR PROPERTY
                ------------------------------------
                       by William P. Cheshire
                     Senior Editorial Columnist
                          ARIZONA REPUBLIC

If you pick up any Wednesday's USA TODAY and turn to the D section,
you'll find a full page of cash, cars and real estate that the Drug
Enforcement Administration has seized under its property-confiscation
authority.

But all this stuff belonged to drug dealers, and they had it coming,
right?  Wrong.  Those listed, the government is careful to point out,
"are not necessarily criminal defendants or suspects, nor does the
appearance of their names in this notice necessarily mean that they
are the target of DEA investigations or other activities."

According to Jarret B. Willstein, associate editor of the FINANCIAL
PRIVACY REPORT, police seize the property of an estimated 5,000
innocent persons every week.  (Willstein's article is reprinted in the
libertarian publication UNCOMMON SENSE, Box 3625, Kingman, AZ 86402.)

"Agencies now confiscating property from innocent Americans," says
Willstein, include the FBI, the Coast Guard, the Food and Drug
Administration, the U.S. Postal Service, the Bureau of Land
Management, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, as well as "thousands of state and
local police departments."

Volusia County, Fla., police routinely ask people stopped for traffic
violations how much money they're carrying, Willstein says.  If the
motorists have more than a few hundred dollars on them, the money is
seized on grounds of "suspicious behavior." Police also seize jewelry
and expensive cars.  "In the last four years," says Willstein, "these
legalized highway robberies have brought in $8 million."

POLICE EYE TRAVELERS
--------------------

Even paying for airline tickets can be dangerous.  The DEA and local
police operate surveillance units at all major airports.  According to
Willstein, "virtually everyone you deal with at an airport -- from the
ticket clerks to the baggage handlers -- is paid a 10 percent bounty
for turning you in to the DEA if you buy a ticket with cash or if you
look 'suspicious'."

The CBS program 60 MINUTES sent a well-dressed reporter to airports in
several major cities, where he purchased tickets with cash.  In every
instance DEA agents were waiting to seize his money.

The feds also keep a watchful eye on patrons of major hotels around
the country, have installed surveillance cameras at agricultural
supply houses and require salesmen to keep a record of people who buy
grow-lights, hoping to spot pot farms, Willstein reports.

Local police are no slouches, either.

Texas officers arrested a 49-year-old woman at Houston's Hobby Airport
five years ago when a drug dog scratched at her luggage, Willstein
says.  A search revealed no drugs, but did turn up $39,100 -- money
from an insurance settlement and the woman's 20-year savings.

NO CHARGES BROUGHT
------------------

The woman was charged with no crime and was able to document the
origin of the money.  The cops kept it anyway.

Though not mentioned by Willstein, the case of Donald P. Scott shows
law enforcement at its worst.  Using an improperly obtained search
warrant, 30 local and federal law enforcement officers broke down the
door of Scott's California home in October 1992.  When Scott, armed
with a pistol, went to check on the commotion, the cops killed him "in
self-defense."

They said they suspected Scott of growing marijuana, but no marijuana
was found.  After an exhaustive investigation, Ventura County District
Attorney Michael D. Bradbury concluded that the raid "was motivated,
at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the
government."

The D.A.'s report added this chilling tidbit: "In order to seize and
forfeit property under either California or federal law, there is no
requirement that an individual be arrested or charged criminally."

You may have thought the Constitution protected you against
"unreasonable searches and seizures" and kept the government from
taking your property "without due process of law." These are mere
words on paper -- words increasingly disregarded by what some people,
including yours truly on especially gloomy days, suspect is the
vanguard of a police state.

    RE: .140

>    ....they are/were employed by the LA County Sheriff's
>    Dept.  There was a 3rd officer at the scene, California Highway

    Since I get the LA TV stations, I've been getting a nightly dose
    concerning the incident.  The talking heads keep referring to
    Riverside County.


    On a slightly different subject, I had lunch today with someone who
    lives in San Diego.  He said that since the incident several border
    patrol and CHP cars that have chased illegals have had their
    windshields smashed in with rocks during the chase.

    -- Dave

>>    On a slightly different subject, I had lunch today with someone who
>>    lives in San Diego.  He said that since the incident several border
>>    patrol and CHP cars that have chased illegals have had their
>>    windshields smashed in with rocks during the chase.
    
    You don't suppose, by any chance, that they are trying to deliberately
    provoke the officers into losing their cool, and not only be allowed to
    stay in the states, but to sue the county for big bucks?
    
    tom

>    You don't suppose, by any chance, that they are trying to deliberately
>    provoke the officers into losing their cool, and not only be allowed to
>    stay in the states, but to sue the county for big bucks?

And therein lies the total insanity of the American court system.

I'm no fan of cops losing their cool. But I fail to see that action on their
part as being sufficient cause for the courts to pander to illegal aliens
who are guilty of endangering the lives of American citizens. The very fact
that a court would even deign to listen to such a case is disgusting.

    
    	On 1 hand, the immigrants are people and deserve the same rights
    	that anyone else would expect, like the right not to be beaten
    	for traffic infractions.
    
    	On the other hand, it definitely sounds like they posed a real
    	threat to anyone even close to them, and very probably deserved
    	the beating they got [I haven't seen the footage] ... immigrants
    	or not.
    

>    	On 1 hand, the immigrants are people and deserve the same rights
>    	that anyone else would expect, like the right not to be beaten
>    	for traffic infractions.

Everyone should have the right not to be beaten unless for the purpose of 
self defense, Shawn. Illegal Aliens SHOULD NOT have the right to bring suit
in American courts. Read my lips - THEY ARE HERE ILLEGALLY. THEY DON'T
BELONG HERE. THEY HAVEN'T THE RIGHTS THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE, SUCH
AS THE RIGHT TO USE OUR CIVIL COURT SYSTEM.

What the hell do you want to do next? Give them the vote, a social
security number, and a medicare account?

What they deserve is an escort back to their border. Period.

>             THEY HAVEN'T THE RIGHTS THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE, SUCH
>AS THE RIGHT TO USE OUR CIVIL COURT SYSTEM.

You don't have to be an American citizen to use the civil courts.

| <<< Note 687.146 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

| >             THEY HAVEN'T THE RIGHTS THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE, SUCH
| >AS THE RIGHT TO USE OUR CIVIL COURT SYSTEM.

| You don't have to be an American citizen to use the civil courts.

	Not to mention that shouting is not civil!

> You don't have to be an American citizen to use the civil courts.

Granted, I suppose, if one is here on a legal visa or the like. Totally 
unreasonable to expect for an illegal alien, however.

    Side note, to get back to the original topic.
    
    Bob Dole has withdrawn the immigration reform bill.

    
    
    Explain why, meg...
    
    

    apparent usual scent marking contest on the law.  Dole apparently
    doesn't want any ammendments debated about the bill, so he would rather
    blame others for not getting the bill through, rather than working
    through the usual rough and tumble of the senate.
    
    meg

    
    
    I believe it was because the honorable Sen. Kennedy wanted to attach
    the minimum wage amendment to the immigration bill...
    
    That being the case, I agree with what Sen. Dole did...

    So do I.
    
    Once again, like Maxine Waters, another politician abusing a bill.
    
    -Jack

Sure looked like Kennedy had a win-win situation.  Either get this
immigration bill defeated or withdrawn, or get his pet minimum wage
increase passed.

And doesn't Clinton have the line item veto now?  He could conceivably
line item veto the whole bill except for the minimum wage increase.

 Z   And doesn't Clinton have the line item veto now?  He could conceivably
 Z   line item veto the whole bill except for the minimum wage increase.
    
    I don't believe that takes effect until the next president.

    doesn't take effect until Jan 1, which effectively means it can't be
    used until the next presidential term.  
    
    You mean to say dole and the repub's didnt have enough moxy to defeat
    this ammendment?  Lat time I checked they had the majority.
    
    meg

	I'm glad Kennedy did that. If the repubs want to do something stupid
(defeat the min wage bill, stupid immigration law), then Kennedy's move killed
what they wanted to do, which was stupid of the repubs in the 1st place.


Glen

Why is the immigration bill "stupid", Glen?

    Don't expect a reasoned answer, Jack.

	Because I think that it is..... :-)  Actually, if ya read .3, you would
know what I said was a wind-up. :-) But the wrong Jack answered.


Glen

 Z   I'm glad Kennedy did that. If the repubs want to do something stupid
 Z   (defeat the min wage bill, stupid immigration law), then Kennedy's move
 Z   killed
 Z   what they wanted to do, which was stupid of the repubs in the 1st
 Z   place.
    
    If the minimum wage law takes effect, I will have to let go of one of
    my employees.  Unfortunately, I will do it too.
    
    Still feel compelled to meddle?

    >If the minimum wage law takes effect, I will have to let go of one of
    >my employees.  Unfortunately, I will do it too.
    
     That's ok- they'll then decide they need to increase taxes on business
    to fund an expanded welfare system to deal with these displaced
    workers.

       <<< Note 687.156 by CSC32::M_EVANS "It's the foodchain, stupid" >>>

   > You mean to say dole and the repub's didnt have enough moxy to defeat
   > this ammendment?  Lat time I checked they had the majority.
    
   Here's a twist. Kennedy isn't to blame for adding this 
   amendment, it's the repubs fault because they supposedly don't 
   have the votes to kill it. Interesting view.

   daryll

Moxie (tm).  HTH.

    .162
    
    It's a vicious cycle, no?

| <<< Note 687.161 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| If the minimum wage law takes effect, I will have to let go of one of
| my employees.  Unfortunately, I will do it too.

	Jack, one of your employees? Splain, please.


Glen

1.We're in an election year. 
2.Bill thinks that an increase in the min. wage is a great idea. 
3.Three years ago he didn't.

What's changed? See #1.

daryll

    Glen:
    
    I have four youngsters who work for me every week.  A few of them I pay
    6 an hour and the other I pay 5.  These kids are sharks and will expect
    their pay to go up in parity with the minimum wage.  I will of course
    have to comply but the two younger will unfortunately have to find some
    other job.  
    
    See Glen, there is a point of diminishing returns.  Your constant
    meddling in the affairs of the private sector only aid in shooting
    people in the foot.  You think you're doing the noble thing but in
    essence you're frigging things up.
    
    -Jack 

    
    Jack:  Why do three of them get $6 and one gets $5?  Don't they do the
    same work?
    
    You will not have to raise their pay just because the minimum wage goes
    up!  What exactly do they do for you?  Do you withhold taxes and such
    like for them, or just give them cash for working for you?
    

    I just give them cash.  They all make under $500.00 annually, otherwise
    I would submit 1099's.
    
    The kids help me bag 2300 papers on Thursday nights.  They all started
    at $5 and are moved up to six once they show they can concentrate on
    the task and acquire a proficient speed.  In actuality, they only stay
    at five for the first few months.  The two making five are 9 years of
    age.  They are a boy and girl who are getting there.  The older are 13
    and fifteen and I am competing with a heavy babysitting schedule they
    have.  At times, they would rather make less babysitting than go out in
    the coolness of the night making two dollars more.  I have to incent
    them.
    
    As I said, Glen thinks he's being the pied piper here with his constant
    governmental meddling when in fact he's mucking up the works for
    people.  The youngsters will not go up to six because I will have to
    pay the older kids more.  But Glen will never see this because he seems
    to think government has a place in my wallet.
    
    -Jack

Jack, do you think their babysitting charges will go up?  I have a hard time
believing that the teenagers and adults who babysit for us will demand an
increase if the minimum wage goes up.  I guess some people need incense
and others don't.

    Gerald,
    
    Most likely not...but consider the fact that these kids are under 16.
    So they can have warmth with little effort babysitting or they can have
    cold and real work for an extra $2.00.  Big whoop in this economy.
    
    -Jack

    
    Why don't you have them bag papers in your living room?  What, do you
    make them sit in a parking lot or something?
    

  punks need incense.

    
    That burns me up.
    

Babysitting is "little effort?"  Depends on the sittees.

    We bag them in the driveway or in the garage.  The volume of papers
    does not allow us to transport or work efficiently in a livingroom.

   .176  gerald, gerald, gerald.  taking care of children is a relatively
	 simple task.  that is, when you consider the mind-bending concentration
	 that is so integral to the process of bagging papers.  i get tired
	 just thinking about it.

Good point, Di.  After all, even the little tax deduction can take care of
kids.  It takes a 12 year old to bag papers.

 just don't let them ski or fly airplanes!

    Re.  One or several notes back there somewhere...
    
    Actually, if an American citizen is in a foreign country and gets
    arrested, they would have to try and contact the American consulate to
    provide them legal assistance.
    
    IMHO, it should be the same way here in the states...
    
    BTW, I'm all for a bill that denies illegal aliens financial aid from
    our government.

    
    
    Baby-sitting is easy...
    
    As long as you have the correct wooden spoon...
    

| <<< Note 687.168 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| I have four youngsters who work for me every week.  A few of them I pay
| 6 an hour and the other I pay 5.  These kids are sharks and will expect
| their pay to go up in parity with the minimum wage.  

	You take the cake, you know that? So if minimum wage goes up X%, then
we all should get X% more? They know that $5 is more than $4.75. They aren't
about to leave for less. So if you are going to use an example, please make it
a realistic one.

| See Glen, there is a point of diminishing returns. 

	Something is diminished, but it ain't the returns.

| Your constant meddling in the affairs of the private sector only aid in 
| shooting people in the foot. 

	You would hardly be shot in the foot. Infact, if a kid left due to
GREED (and not the minimum wage like you say), you could hire another kid for
$4.75!

| You think you're doing the noble thing but in essence you're frigging things 
| up.

	In your world, maybe. In reality, not with the example you gave. 


Glen

| <<< Note 687.170 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| As I said, Glen thinks he's being the pied piper here with his constant
| governmental meddling when in fact he's mucking up the works for people. The 
| youngsters will not go up to six because I will have to pay the older kids 
| more.  

	Jack, the minimum wage going up will NOT make your wages go up, because
YOUR WAGES are higher than the minimum, still. 



Glen

| <<< Note 687.172 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Most likely not...

	There you have it. Babysitting won't ask for more, but your people
will. You take the cake, Jack.



Glen

Yeah, Jack's logic is very strange.  The kids will demand more money bacause
it's easier to babysit, but he admits babysitting prices probably won't go up.

    
    So now it's pick on Jack Martin for using a poor analogy, rather than
    deal with the real issue of it being a piss-poor decision to raise the
    minimum wage...
    
     
     Is that about right, so far??
    

OK, Andy, why is it a poor idea?

>> | Your constant meddling in the affairs of the private sector only aid in 
>> | shooting people in the foot. 

>> 	You would hardly be shot in the foot. Infact, if a kid left due to
>> GREED (and not the minimum wage like you say), you could hire another kid for
>> $4.75!
    
    Is it possible that...
    
    if the minimum wage is raised, fewer employers, who are "required by
    government" to pay X dollars in minimum wage, will hire younger teens
    because if they're going to have to pay more, they're going to want
    people with more experience, which usually equates to late-teens/adults.
    
    NOTE the "required by government" part.

    
    because it's the gov't mandating an increase and not economic
    tendencies..
    
     Who will pay for the wage increase? The employer? I think not (and I
    believe you think not, too)
    
     The employer will either have to raise the price of his/her goods or
    make less of a profit.
    
     This will hurt the small businesses more than enough else.. those that
    deal with a very tight profit margin...
    
     So what it means is less entry-level positions... But with today's
    kids... they look down their noses anyway at those types of jobs and
    want to start at $10-12 an hour...
    

	Andy, a lot of kids DO want to get about $10-12. If minimum wage goes
up, they could work at Cumberland farms for $7.00/hour.


Glen

    I hate to interject here, but the proposed minimum wage increase is not
    to $4.75, but $5.90 an hour.
     
    Well, this is the *latest* dimocrat scheme, anyway, maybe not the one
    being discussed here.  I saw a couple of critters on a tv newshow...heard 
    some dim senator talking about it- said he will not accept anything less 
    than an increase of the minimum wage to $5.90/hour.  The repub didn't
    agree with the Dem_crat one bit.
    
    IMO, the federal government should have NO say in this whatsoever. 
    Last time I read the Constitution, I didn't see any delegated power to
    control wages in the private sector.  And the 10th states that powers
    not specifically delegated to the fed, belong to the states and/or the
    people.  
    
    
    -steve

	Steve, I think it is a raise to $4.75 to start. 


Glen

>     So what it means is less entry-level positions... But with today's
>    kids... they look down their noses anyway at those types of jobs and
>    want to start at $10-12 an hour...
    
If nobody will work for less than $10 an hour, what difference does it
make if the minimum wage is $2 or $8?

	Kids might want $10+, but adults seem to work for less because they
have to make ends meet for their families, or just themselves.

    
    RE: .195
    
    >If nobody will work for less than $10 an hour
    
    Oh.. many people will.. either older folks, or illegals... or those
    just plain folks that realize that you have to start at square one in
    order to get to square two and so on... 
    
     Kids that want to get to square ten right from the get-go will find
    themselves sitting on their thumbs...
    

    
    re: .192
    
    And before long, you'll see your gallon of milk go up to $3.00-$3.50...
    

Hint: the price of milk has almost nothing to do with the wages that
convenience stores pay.

re. -1
    
    isn't minimum wage already $4.75?

re.  kids want $10/hr
    
    Sure. My kids would love to get jobs that pay $10/hr...
    
    Still, my youngest son assumes the best he'll do is get a job starting
    at minimum wage. If minimum wage were much higher, he probably wouldn't
    be able to even get a job.
    
    On the other hand, my older son didn't want to have anything to do with
    a job paying under $6/hr. Well, he found out the hard way that since he
    has little/no experience, he had to take what he could get.

    At least he could still get a job, since he's own his own now, because
    the minimum wage was low enough for someone to be willing to hire him.
    
    At least he doesn't have to ask for handouts from welfare.

    The Federal minimum wage for employers of mor than X people at x
    hours/week is 4.25/hr.  
    
    The REPUBLICAN proposed minimum wage is 5.50, or about 25 cents more
    than what Clinton proposed.  

    Glen:
    
    Okay, maybe my example wasn't the greatest; however, it can easily be
    applied to a small company with 100 employees.  It's very nice of you
    to speak on behalf of business owners throughout the country.  Do us a
    favor...butt out.
    
    It would be easier for me to go right to the newspaper and hire some of
    the illegals down there at $3.00 an hour.  Glen, I pay above minimum
    because I believe it is the right thing to do.  Therefore, many people
    who think like me are setting a precedent for competition.  I don't
    even think McDonalds pays minimum wage.  Therefore, you ought to really
    stay out of it and let market forces take over.
    
    The whole thing is moot anyway.  $10.00 is still below poverty level
    and you are going to increase the trade deficit.
    
    -Jack

    
    re: .199
    
    >Hint: the price of milk has almost nothing to do with the wages that
    >convenience stores pay.
    
    Really??
    
    Okay... milk distributer "A" sells milk to Cumberland Farms for "X"
    dollars.
    
     CUmberland Farms tacks on, say, X + 25 cents
    
     The local franchise owner has to make a profit too, no?
    
     He takes (X + 25 cents) and adds, say 10 cents..
    
     Now, said franchise owner has to pay some kid the new minimum wage,
    which cuts into his 10 cents...
    
     Or does he hire more kids to push more milk?? If he pushes more milk,
    his cut is equal to or more because of more volume?? Or, because it's a
    small store and limited volume, does he hike up his cut to 15 cents?
    

>>  I don't even think McDonalds pays minimum wage.  

...Actually...

In Albuquerque, Micky-D's pays $6/hr to start...

Here (colorado springs), I believe it's $5

Either way, both are above minimum wage...

Have you noticed that practically every food item except milk costs a lot
more in convenience stores that in supermarkets, and that milk costs less?
They sell milk cheaply to bring in customers.  An increase in the minimum
wage is unlikely to affect this strategy, particularly since the starting
wage at the Cumberland Farms in my neighborhood is $6, and they can't hire
enough people.

re: Note 687.188   NOTIME::SACKS 
    
>OK, Andy, why is it a poor idea?
    
    Better yet, why is raising the minimum wage a GOOD idea?
    
    
    Doug.

| <<< Note 687.202 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Okay, maybe my example wasn't the greatest; however, it can easily be
| applied to a small company with 100 employees.  It's very nice of you
| to speak on behalf of business owners throughout the country.  Do us a
| favor...butt out.

	Jack, do you file anything for these kids? You said earlier you did
not. If not, you are not a business owner. 

| It would be easier for me to go right to the newspaper and hire some of
| the illegals down there at $3.00 an hour.  Glen, I pay above minimum
| because I believe it is the right thing to do.  Therefore, many people
| who think like me are setting a precedent for competition.  I don't
| even think McDonalds pays minimum wage.  Therefore, you ought to really
| stay out of it and let market forces take over.

	Then there should not be a problem.




Glen

  Z  Jack, do you file anything for these kids? You said earlier you did
  Z  not. If not, you are not a business owner. 
    
    A business owner isn't determined by the number of employees he/she
    has.  The kids make under $500.00 each and therefore do not have to be
    filed.
    
    ZZ There should be no problem then.
    
    Yes, there is a problem.  There is the issue of the unmitigated gall
    you think you have to dictate the policies of the private sector.  That
    to me is a pecedent that isn't needed anymore.  Butt out.

| <<< Note 687.208 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| A business owner isn't determined by the number of employees he/she
| has.  The kids make under $500.00 each and therefore do not have to be
| filed.

	So how are you a business OWNER? If you are stuffing papers for another
company so you can deliver them, then you are working for them, and
essentially, so aren't the kids as their money is being used to pay off the
kids. 

| Yes, there is a problem.  There is the issue of the unmitigated gall you think
| you have to dictate the policies of the private sector.  That to me is a 
| pecedent that isn't needed anymore.  Butt out.

	Never, Jack. You haven't even come close to making any type of real
argument to back yer claims. 

>company so you can deliver them, then you are working for them, and
>essentially, so aren't the kids as their money is being used to pay off the
>kids. 


    so *ARE* the kids..so *ARE* the kids!!

 Z   So how are you a business OWNER? If you are stuffing papers for
 Z   another company so you can deliver them, then you are working for them
    
    Glen, if I subcontract a paving company to put in a driveway, the
    paving company doesn't work for me.  They work for themselves.  
    
    Ever hear of incorporating Glen?  The kids work for me.  I pay my own
    Social security...the Telegraph has absolutely no liability for me. 
    They can break the contract, they don't pay 7% of the FICA, NADA!!!!
    
    I work for Jack Martin's Delivery Service.

    RE: Jack

    You pay a 9 year old only $5/hour?!?  You really are a sadistic <r.o.>!
    How do you expect the kid to support a wife and two kids on that?!?


    RE: meg

    I disagree with any pollytick-ian raising the minimum wage.  Having
    said that, if they would just raise the minimum to $50/hour I could
    live quite well and not have to work so many hour a week to boot.

    -- Dave

    -1
      Or how about $100/hr.  We could all buy anything we wanted.
    
    
    Tell us why my liberal friends. Do you think DIGITAL will pay me more
    if the minimum is increased?  No!  Prices will go up & I'll be the one
    getting screwed. To heck with this wage B.S.
    -ss
    

	Jack, thanks for clearing that up. It still comes down to one thing...
you will not have to pay the kid more because the minimum wage goes up. 


Glen

    re: .212
    
    Oh indeed!  $50/hour would suit me just fine.  8^)  Of course, that
    computer I'm wanting to buy would probably cost somewhere in the
    neighborhood of $10,000, rather than the $1700 I'm looking to spend.
    
    No telling what the grocery bill would be, but I'm willing to bet that
    once everything is said and done, I'd be losing money (spending power) 
    by making a minimum wage of $50/hour (even though I don't make anywhere 
    near $50/hour currently).
    
    What some folks don't realize is that raising the minimum wage by $1 an
    hour will have the same effect (less overall buying power, as the
    market has to adjust for the forced increase in pay), though on a lesser 
    scale. 
    
    
    -steve

    .213
    
    Another good point worth consideration.  

    I checked out some stats this morning.  
    
    1.7% of our workforce is actually paid minimum wage.  37% are ages
    16-18, and 57% are ages 19-24.
    
    Doesn't look like this is really the burning issue the politicians are
    making it out to be.
    
    -Jack

	What was your source, Jack?

 >   1.7% of our workforce is actually paid minimum wage.  37% are ages
 >   16-18, and 57% are ages 19-24.

 What part of the workforce makes between minimum wage and $5.90?


 >   Doesn't look like this is really the burning issue the politicians are
 >   making it out to be.
 
  You've got to invent the problem before you can solve it :-)

 Doug.

    And how many of those in those age groups are attempting to support
    families?  Can we have the rest of the stat's please?
    
    Oh, that's right there are no pregnancies or marriages or families in
    this country until people are in their 30's.  (It is Friday, isn't it?)
    
    meg

    It was from Rush.

>    It was from Rush.

	did you genuflect after you typed that, Jack?

    >It was from Rush.
    
     The numbers in and of themselves seem suspect. Your source does
    nothing to reassure me that these numbers are anything but PFA.

    Getting back to the II thingie,  INS has no resources to deal with
    keeping and deproting II's in Colorado.  Over 100 II's have been turned
    loose in CO on the highways because INS has no money to arrest,
    incarcerate, and deport people from Colorado.  There appears to be no
    further funding planned to cover the added expense of people picked up
    on highway stops by the Staties.
    
    The Coyotes are definitely on to this and are shipping migrant workers
    through Colorado, Kansas, Missouri..... instead of on the usual
    southern highways.  
    
    The Fed's can grandstand all they like, but until they are willing to
    put some money towards this, there is no point in making yet another
    unenforcible law.
    
    meg

    Why would anyone want to deprot a II?  

	I agree with the doc, Jack. 

    Glen:
    
    Not to rathole, but the truth in the media organization shows stats
    from Rush to be less in error than the networks.

 generic request for sources reply

| <<< Note 687.227 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Not to rathole, but the truth in the media organization shows stats
| from Rush to be less in error than the networks.

	Who runs that organization, Jack?

	Jim, you knew it was coming, huh????

    Gee
    
    FAIR finds Rushes stats to be just the opposite.  Generally created
    from the proverbial cloth sold to a certain emporer.
    
    meg

    RE: .231

>    FAIR finds Rushes stats to be just the opposite.  Generally created
>    from the proverbial cloth sold to a certain emporer.

    And of course FAIR is a completely impartial observer formerly headed
    by the first lady.

    -- Dave

 ZZ    Who runs that organization, Jack?
    
    The Northwest Mounted Militias.

     Police are focusing on man outside club in au pair's murder

     By Ric Kahn and Matt Bai, Globe Staff, 06/27/96

     As police yesterday questioned bar patrons who may have seen a Swedish
     nanny in the hours before her murder and mutilation, their
     investigation shifted away from the woman's employer and focused on a
     stranger who may have offered the 20-year-old woman a ride home after
     she spent a night drinking with friends.

     Among the leads investigators are following is an account of a
     self-described witness who said Karina E. Holmer was outside Zanzibar,
     a downtown club, around 3 a.m. Saturday, talking with a man and petting
     his small, light-colored dog, according to law enforcement sources.

     He was described by the witness as a muscular man in his 40s with curly
     grayish hair and in casual dress, one source said.

     According to the witness, Holmer told the man that her friends had left
     the bar without her, and he offered to drive her home, a source said.
     Investigators are trying to determine whether Holmer accepted the ride,
     although they do not believe that she ever made it back to the South
     Boston loft where she was supposed to stay.

     ``If you get away from the possibility that it was someone she knew,
     then you have to start looking at Jeffrey Dahmer-types,'' one source
     said, referring to the serial killer.

     Yet there was one indication yesterday that there may have been turmoil
     in Holmer's life. In a letter home, she complained to a friend weeks
     ago of a crisis.

     ``She wrote to me and said: `Something terrible has happened. I cannot
     tell you right now what it is. But I will tell you when I get home,'''
     said Ulrika Svensson, 20, in an interview with Expressen, Sweden's
     largest newspaper.

     Holmer also wrote to Charlotte Sandberg, another friend in Sweden, and
     said she was homesick and that being an au pair was hard work. ``I'm
     stressed all the time and it hasn't turned out the way I thought it
     would,'' the letter said, according to the newspaper.

     The friends said Holmer, who arrived in the United States in March,
     planned to got home to Sweden in August because she was unhappy.

     The upper half of Holmer's body was found in a Fenway dumpster Sunday
     afternoon. The lower half has not been recovered. Investigators
     theorize Holmer was strangled and then cut in half, possibly with a
     power saw.

     A close friend of Holmer's, also a Swedish nanny, has said that she
     last saw Holmer leaving the club with an ``older man.'' Police are
     reviewing videotapes of patrons entering and leaving the club.

     Investigators spent most of yesterday interviewing people who were at
     the club that night, sources said.

     Earlier in the week, police twice questioned Holmer's employer, Frank
     Rapp, 43, of Dover. Holmer looked after Rapp's two small children.

     Aided by a cadaver-sniffing dog, police Tuesday searched Rapp's South
     Boston photography studio for possible evidence. After six hours,
     police left with six bags that included items of Holmer's clothing, one
     law enforcement source said.

     Friends say Holmer slept at Rapp's loft studio on A street on weekends
     after partying with friends at Boylston Street nightspots like Zanzibar
     and the Mercury Bar.

     Police focused on Rapp after removing items from a burned dumpster
     outside his condominium, sources said.

     Rapp said in an interview with the Globe on Tuesday that he had
     ``absolutely'' been ruled out as a suspect in the case. While police
     would not go that far yesterday, sources close to the investigation
     said attention has turned away from Rapp.

     In an interview last night, with Swedish TV, Rapp's wife, Susan
     Nichter, 37, said her family was devastated by the killing. She also
     said in the interview that her husband had been cleared of suspicion,
     but it hadn't stopped the rumors.

     ``It's crazy for these accusations to be coming out,'' she said. ``I
     mean, you know, we're in Dover at the drive-in. It's my son's last day
     of school, and we're celebrating with him. Karina's in Boston with her
     friends, and disappears with her friends. I mean, where's the
     connection?''

     Lt. Robert O'Toole, a Boston Police Department spokesman, said
     yesterday that investigators had interviewed a number of people and
     ``haven't ruled anyone in or out.''

     O'Toole said yesterday that investigators had not yet found the crime
     scene. ``As an investigator, a crime scene can talk to you,'' said
     O'Toole.

     This story ran on page 1 of the Boston Globe on 06/27/96.

    re -1
    keep us posted...

Chris's comment/query about immigration concerns in the latest Libertarian
note reminded me of this -

Some discussion on the Today Show this AM regarding more issues in CA
around restricting the availability of education to illegal immigrants.

The guy opposed to the restrictions had the temerity to contend that it
was inappropriate to foster restrictions as it would discourage the
continued "supply" of illegal aliens which "are needed for the continued
health of the California economy in farm and domestic labor".

Some people just don't get it. They're also pretty damn stupid.

    
    I am against illegal immigrant to use my tax money on
    education purpose.  I like Canada's law.  There if a illegal
    (or someone who don't have immigrant status) wants to send kids
    to school.  They have to pay tuition.  I call this fair.
    
    But the current proposal in congress not only cut the illegal.
    It cuts the benefit of legal immigrant too.  This I can't agree.
    And I strongly oppose it.

>    But the current proposal in congress not only cut the illegal.
>    It cuts the benefit of legal immigrant too.

Where on earth did you hear that, Jason?

    
      You know, for once, I agree with you, and I haven't even had
     a margarita.  A public education should be available to the
     children of legal immigrants, but not to the children of illegals.
    
      bb

    
    RE: DELBALSO
    
    May be you didn't hear it.  Most of news media just don't
    report it.  I knew it through chinese newspaper. 

Why not provide us with the translated copy?

Is this newspaper published in the States?

    
    It is published daily from New York and Los Angeles.
    Translation?  It has more than 40 pages daily.
    Mainstream media?  I would think so.  Because it get
    all its news from big media like AP, etc.  Only that
    you will see a lot of news you don't see in english newspaper.
    

> Only that you will see a lot of news you don't see in english newspaper.

Clearly, I find this quite confusing, Jason. If, as you claim, this is a paper 
published here in the states, which relies upon sources from the major 
newsfeeds (AP, UPI or whatever), then why wouldn't such travesties within 
this bill have also been pointed out in mainstream media (or, if you will,
English-speaking press) also having access to such sources? Why wouldn't,
for example, The Congressional Record, a public document, have made such a
travesty clear to the American public by now? Surely there must be congressional
legislators (such as those opposing the bill - it's not enjoying unanimous
support) who would be shouting from the rooftops the inequities which you
propose to exist!

Do you suppose, just maybe, perhaps, that it could be, possibly, that the
news source on which you are relying, is not being totally honest?

So. Show me the proof that the bill is attempting to cut benefits to legal
immigrants and we'll be done with all this. OK?

    
    RE: .-1
    
    What I said is that the major media like newspaper, TV news
    just don't report as many news happening everyday.  They are 
    full of advs.  They only print/broadcast news most of people
    will listen to.  For example, TWA crash, whitewater, Olympic.
    Legal immigrant! Who cares?  They are not voter anyway.  But
    be careful, in immigrant state like California, Dole has no
    chance.  He can't fool people by selecting Kemp as veep.
    Smart voter won't forget what Republican did in last couple years.

 Z    be careful, in immigrant state like California, Dole has no
 Z       chance.  He can't fool people by selecting Kemp as veep.
    
    Jason, the mere fact that Bob Dole believes in less government
    intrusion is a plus.  However, I concede that you may very well be
    correct, considering the mush brains that reside in California as well
    as the fact that Clinton has a 20% lead.  
    
    The abortion issue is significant in California and Bob Dole will have
    to combat this.  
    
    -Jack

    RE: .245

>    Legal immigrant! Who cares?  They are not voter anyway.  But
>    be careful, in immigrant state like California, Dole has no
>    chance.  

    <sarcasm on>
    I guess that's why prop 187 was overwhelmingly defeated at the polls.
    <sarcasm off>

    -- Dave