As if we didn’t have enough reasons to not vote for Bill Hunt, he appears in the video above, giving his support to the racist “Rule of Law” statute passed by the Costa Mesa City Council this week.
“This week’s resolution follows an April news conference in which Mayor Allan Mansoor called for stricter regulations to catch illegal immigrants living, working and driving in the city,” according to the L.A. Times.
It was a unanimous vote, according to the L.A. Times, but Council Woman Katrina Foley says she did not vote for this. Thanks Katrina!
According to Gustavo Arellano, Mansoor, whose parents were immigrants from Egypt and Sweden, has failed in his longstanding war against all things Mexican:
Actually, Mansoor’s campaign against illegals has cost the city much money than it has saved. The city spent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars both defending against and pursuing an unsuccessful lawsuit against activist Coyotl Tezcatlipoca, all because Mansoor didn’t appreciate Coyotl’s defiance of Da Dum-Dum Mayor on the dais during a city council meeting. Mansoor tried closing down the Orange Coast College Swap Meet, a move that would’ve cost the city thousands in fees. And Mansoor rejected $40,000 in funds that a basketball league would’ve paid the city, all because the league had the word “Aztec” in it and mostly involved Mexis.
A group on Facebook is leading a boycott against Costa Mesa. Click here to check them out. Don’t spend your money at Costa Mesa businesses!!!
And don’t forget to donate to Phu Nguyen, who is running for the Democratic nomination in the 68th Assembly District. Click here to see his website. If Mansoor beats Long Pham, in the GOP primary, then Nguyen will be our only hope to stop Mansoor and prevent him from getting to Sacramento.
cook,
“Amnesty main beneficiaries are the “criminal element” who are not allowed to immigrate to USA.”
Do you understand what amnesty means relative to immigration reform? I believe you do but have now taken the task to stir the pot.
“The “Gabriel” poster only complains about the USA and USA laws and that the USA is to blame for all wrongs in the country of Mexico. I bet that this Gabriel person has never even been to Mexico.”
Gabriel is simply presenting the involvement of our federal government, corporate America and our neighbors in the condition of Mexico which has been purposely set in order to bring in the necessary influx of immigrants that will produce the youth necessary for the stability of our economy and necessary to support our aging population.
LIKE IT OR NOT THIS IS THE REALITY.
” I bet that this Gabriel person has never even been to Mexico.” What does this have to do with his thought?
GRABRIEL KEEP UP THE STUBBORN FIGHT. i AM WITH YOU.
Doc Art.
The posting on this subject are race baiting and button pushing without any meat and potatoes.
You are an exception doc, your post and summary about the “Dream Act” changed my mind.
Almost all the other posters offer nothing other than “Hot Air“.
All that I am asking is for the complainers to offer a solution. Or maybe even define what the problem is?
i would love the feds to do a all out raids on illegal immigrant cities . s.a. l.a. , maywood , and then i would love to hear the stupid hispanic activist explain that one . the feds law states they can ask ANYONE FOR THEIR PAPERS . for any reason they like . now what .?
What do I keep saying the American Government has been infiltrated by union hacks and left wing extremists. The American people have been side slapped by their own government.
If we need young people, then allow immigration from all over this world, not just from our neighbor. What made this country great is that the cream of the crop came from all over this world and made this country what it is today, but they came wanting to be part of this country, not wanting this country to be part of their country.
I say let them in legally and allow the best to prosper and the weak to go home!
That is the best Immigration Reform approach, not the approach of taking in Mexico’s poor and see how it goes!
It has not been great so far, this country does not need Welfare offices severing the Citizens in Spanish!
Yes, Grabriel, be my guest, keep up the fight, but take it first to Mexico, then you can help our people take on our run away government!
Ok my solution is my last post:
I am glad one person like’s the Dream Act. The majority who are a little more into equal justice instead of social justice, HATE IT! 🙂
Ok, back to work paying for the healthy kids program 🙁
MQ,
“If we need young people, then allow immigration from all over this world, not just from our neighbor. What made this country great is that the cream of the crop came from all over this world and made this country what it is today, but they came wanting to be part of this country, not wanting this country to be part of their country.”
Immigration is and has been based on those escaping economic,religious amd political oppression. If you consider escaping oppression as traits of cream of the crop then immigrants from south of the border are no different from anyone else.
“That is the best Immigration Reform approach, not the approach of taking in Mexico’s poor and see how it goes! ”
It is not about “see how it goes”. It is about understanding our society’s responsibility to develop this resource. It is not about fighting Mexico or any one else. Itis about developing this natural resouce to serve as intended .
cook,
Thanks. I understand you better.
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:navigation, search
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), also Simpson-Mazzoli Act (Pub.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, signed by President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986) is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law. The Act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants (immigrants who do not possess lawful work authorization), required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status, and granted amnesty to certain illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously. The Act also granted a path towards legalization to certain agricultural seasonal workers and immigrants who had been continuously and illegally present in the United States since January 1, 1982.[1]
Contents [hide]
1 Legislative background and description
2 Effect upon the labor market
3 References
4 See also
5 External links
[edit] Legislative background and description
Romano L. Mazzoli was a Democratic representative from Kentucky and Alan K. Simpson was a Republican senator from Wyoming who chaired their respective immigration subcommittees in Congress. Their effort was assisted by the recommendations of the bipartisan Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, then President of the University of Notre Dame. The law criminalized the act of knowingly hiring an illegal immigrant and established financial and other penalties for those employing illegal aliens under the theory that low prospects for employment would reduce illegal immigration. It introduced the I-9 form to ensure that all employees presented documentary proof of their legal eligibility to accept employment in the United States.
These sanctions would only apply to employers that had more than three employees and that did not make a sufficient effort to determine the legal status of their workers.
The first Simpson-Mazzoli Bill was reported out of the House of Senate Judiciary Committees. The bill failed to be received by the House, however, where civil rights advocates were concerned over the potential for abuse and discrimination against Hispanics, growers’ groups rallied for additional provisions for foreign labor, and the Chamber of Commerce persistently opposed sanctions against employers.
The second Simpson-Mazzoli Bill finally passed both houses in 1985, but it came apart in the conference committee over the issue of cost. This year marked an important turning point for the reform effort. First, employer opposition to employer sanctions began to subside, placated at least in part by the “affirmative defense” clause in the law which explicitly releases employers from any obligation to check the authenticity of documents presented to them. Second, agricultural employers shifted their focus from opposition to employer sanctions to a concerted campaign to secure alternative sources of foreign labor. As opposition to employer sanctions waned and growers’ lobbying efforts for extensive temporary worker programs intensified, agricultural worker programs began to outrank employer sanctions component as the most controversial element of reform.
The following year, Senator Simpson reintroduced the bill that Congressional opponents were now calling “The Monster from the Blue Lagoon”. By September, this Senate version had already passed.
[edit] Effect upon the labor market
According to one study, the IRCA caused some employers to discriminate against workers who appeared foreign, resulting in a small reduction in overall Hispanic employment. There is zero statistical evidence that a reduction in employment did not reflect a relationship with the economy or was separate from the general unemployment population statistics.[2] Another study stated that if hired, wages were being lowered to compensate employers for the perceived risk of hiring foreigners.[3]
The hiring process also changed as employers turned to indirect hiring through subcontractors. “Under a subcontracting agreement, a U.S. citizen or resident alien contractually agrees with an employer to provide a specific number of workers for a certain period of time to undertake a defined task at a fixed rate of pay per worker”.[3] “By using a subcontractor the firm is not held liable since the workers are not employees. The use of a subcontractor decreases a worker’s wages since a portion is kept by the subcontractor. This indirect hiring is imposed on everyone regardless of legality”.[3]
[edit] References
^ Coutin, Susan Bibler. 2007. Nation of Emigrants. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. pg 179
^ Lowell, Lindsay; Jay Teachman; Zhongren Jing (November 1995). “Unintended Consequences of Immigration Reform: Discrimination and Hispanic Employment”. Demography 32 (4): 617–628. doi:10.2307/2061678. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0070-3370%28199511%2932%3A4%3C617%3AUCOIRD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P. Retrieved 2007-11-29.
^ a b c Massey, Douglas S. (2007). “Chapter 4: Building a Better Underclass”. Categorically Unequal: The American Stratification System. New York: Russel Sage Foundation. pp. 143–145.
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:navigation, search
This article may need to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information, and remove this template when finished. Please see the talk page for more information.
For the 2007 act, see Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S. 2611) was a United States Senate bill introduced in the 109th Congress (2005-2006) by Sen. Arlen Specter [PA] on April 7, 2006. Co-sponsors, who signed on the same day, were Sen. Hagel [NE], Sen. Martinez [FL], Sen. McCain [AZ], Sen. Kennedy [MA], Sen. Graham [SC], and Sen. Brownback [KS].
It deals with immigration reform. It proposed to increase some security along the southern United States border with Mexico, allow long-time illegal immigrants to gain legal status, and to increase the number of guest workers over and above those already present in the U.S. through a new “blue card” visa program. The sponsor of the Bill, Senator Arlen Specter, introduced it on April 7, 2006. It was passed on May 25, 2006, by a vote of 62-36. Cloture was invoked, which limited debate to a 30 hour period. The parallel House Bill H.R. 4437 would have dealt with immigration differently. Neither bill became law because they failed to pass the conference committee. The end of the 109th Congress (January 3, 2007) marked the death of both bills.
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Analysis
3 Provisions
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
[edit] Background
In 2006 there were estimated to be between 8 and 20 million illegal immigrants living within the United States, with the most common estimates being around 11 to 12 million.[1] Further complicating the issue is the extreme poverty present in Mexico and other Latin American countries, the high demand for unskilled labor in the United States, the alleged inadequacy of current legal immigration routes, and the presence of drug and human smuggling on the border. On December 16, 2005, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4437, which solely focused on US-Mexican border security and penalties for employers, smugglers, and those, such as churches and charity workers, providing assistance to illegal immigrants. One of the most controversial aspects of the house bill aimed to change illegal presence in the United States from a civil offense to a felony.
[edit] Analysis
The major difference between H.R. 4437 and S. 2611 was the proposed amnesty for illegal immigrants in S. 2611. This would allow illegal immigrants who have been in the country for more than five years, estimated to be 7 million in number, to apply for citizenship by paying fines and back taxes. Illegal immigrants who have been in the country for 2 to 5 years, numbering around 3 million, would be allowed to stay in the country without fear of deportation, but after 3 years would have to leave the U.S. and could apply for citizenship at border check points. Those in the country for under 2 years would be required to return to their original nations. Thus, with some waiting, 10 million illegal immigrants could be eligible to become citizens. The fine is around $2000, but some sources say it might be higher.
The Bill also introduces a H-2C visa, or “blue card.” This visa allows employers to bring in outside workers for up to 6 years, after which the employee must spend one year in their original country. The Bill proposes 370 miles (600 km) of fencing along highly-populated areas near the border; H.R. 4437 proposes 700 miles (1,100 km) of fencing. The Bill does not mention any expanded role for local law enforcement for border enforcement tasks (primarily for interior enforcement) the way that H.R. 4437 does. There is an added clause, the Inhofe Amendment, an English-only proposal that makes English the “national language” of the United States aiming at discouraging services in any other language than English.
The bill would also increase the annual cap for H-1B work visas from 65,000 to 115,000, with an automatic 20% increase year on year, thus increasing the number of information technology and other professionals from foreign countries eligible to work in the U.S. It also would lower the standard by which judges determine who is eligible for refugee status from “clear and convincing evidence” to “substantial evidence.”
It would allow illegal immigrants who later become legal to collect Social Security benefits based on social security credits earned while they were illegal. Also, the United States federal government would have to consult with Mexican officials before commencement of any fence construction on the U.S. side of the border.
This bill has been compared to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
[edit] Provisions
The Bill set forth border security and enforcement provisions, including provisions respecting:[1]
(1) personnel and asset increases and enhancements; (2) a National Strategy for Border Security; (3) border security initiatives, including biometric data enhancements and a biometric entry-exit system, document integrity, and mandatory detention of aliens apprehended at or between ports of entry; and (4) Central American gangs.
Prohibits state and local law enforcement officers from helping the federal government enforce immigration violations, which they are presently allowed to do.
Provides that the total number of aliens and dependents of such aliens who receive legal permanent resident status shall not exceed 18,000,000 during each 10-year period beginning with the period extending from 2007 through 2016.
Border Tunnel Prevention Act – Provides criminal penalties for construction, financing, or use of illegal border tunnels or passages.
Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2006 – Authorizes a border relief grant program for a tribal, state, or local law enforcement agency in a county: (1) no more than 100 miles (160 km) from a U.S. border with Canada or Mexico; or (2) more than 100 miles (160 km) from any such border but which is a high impact area.
Sets forth interior enforcement provisions, including provisions respecting: (1) alien terrorists; (2) alien street gang members; (3) illegal entry and reentry; (4) passport and immigration fraud; (5) criminal aliens; (6) voluntary departure; (7) detention and alternatives; (8) criminal penalties; (9) alien smuggling; (10) tribal lands security; (11) state and local enforcement of immigration laws; (12) expedited removal; and (13) alien protection from sex offenders.
Makes it unlawful to knowingly hire, recruit, or refer for a fee an unauthorized alien.
Establishes in the Treasury the Employer Compliance Fund.
Provides for additional worksite and fraud detection personnel.
Provides for a report examining the impacts of the current and proposed annual grants of legal status, including immigrant and nonimmigrant status, along with the current level of illegal immigration, on U.S. infrastructure and quality of life.
Establishes a temporary guest worker program (H-2C visa). Provides: (1) that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall determine H-2C eligibility; (2) for a three-year admission with one additional three-year extension; (3) issuance of H-4 nonimmigrant visas for accompanying or following spouse and children; (4) for U.S. worker protection; (5) for implementation of an alien employment management system; and (6) establishment of a Temporary Worker Task Force.
Expands the S-visa (witness/informant) classification.
Limits the L-visa (intracompany transfer) classification.
Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act of 2006 – Sets forth provisions respecting remedies for immigration legislation.
Sets forth backlog reduction provisions respecting: (1) family-sponsored and employment-based immigrant levels; (2) country limits; (3) immigrant visa allocations; (4) minor children; (5) shortage occupations; and (6) student and advanced degree visas.
Widows and Orphans Act of 2006 – Establishes a special immigrant category for certain children and women at risk of harm.
Immigrant Accountability Act of 2006 – Provides permanent resident status adjustment for a qualifying illegal alien (and the spouse and children of such alien) who has been in the United States for five years and employed (with exceptions) for specified periods of time.
Authorizes mandatory departure and immigrant or nonimmigrant reentry for a qualifying illegal alien who has been present and employed in the United States since January 7, 2004. Establishes a three-year mandatory departure status, and sets forth immigration prohibitions and penalties for failure to depart or delayed departure. Subjects the spouse or children of a principal alien to the same conditions as such alien, except that if such alien meets the departure requirement the spouse and children will be deemed to have done so.
Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2006, or AgJOBS Act of 2006 – Establishes a pilot program (Blue Card program) for adjustment to permanent resident status of qualifying agricultural workers who have worked in the United States during the two-year period ending December 31, 2005, and have been employed for specified periods of time subsequent to enactment of this Act.
Revises the H-2A visa (temporary agricultural worker) program.
Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2006 or the DREAM Act of 2006 – Eliminates denial of an unlawful alien’s eligibility for higher education benefits based on state residence unless a U.S. national is similarly eligible without regard to such state residence. Authorizes cancellation of removal and adjustment to conditional permanent resident status of certain alien students who are long-term U.S. residents.
Sets forth provisions respecting: (1) additional Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice immigration personnel; and (2) the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Kendell Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act – Provides that fingerprints provided by a qualifying individual at the time of military enlistment shall satisfy naturalization fingerprint requirements. Requires the Secretary of Defense to establish the position of Citizenship Advocate at each military entry processing station.
State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act – Provides state courts grants to assist individuals with limited English proficiency to access and understand court proceedings, and allocates funds for a related court interpreter technical assistance program.
Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act – Provides for: (1) a port of entry infrastructure assessment study; (2) a national land border security plan; and (3) a port of entry technology demonstration program.
September 11 Family Humanitarian Relief and Patriotism Act – Provides permanent resident status adjustment or cancellation of removal and permanent resident status adjustment for a qualifying alien who was on September 10, 2001, the wife, child, or dependent son or daughter of a lawful nonimmigrant alien who died as a result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States.
Sets forth provisions respecting: (1) noncitizen Armed Forces membership; (2) nonimmigrant status for athletes; (3) extension of returning worker exemption; (4) surveillance programs, including aerial and unmanned aerial surveillance; (5) a Northern Border Prosecution Initiative; (6) reimbursement of Southern Border State and county prosecutors for prosecuting federally initiated drug cases; (7) conditional nonimmigrant worker-related grants; (8) border security on federal land; and (9) parole and status adjustment relief for qualifying widows and orphans.
That proposal sounds pretty good if coupled with some non-profit charities to help fund and pay for the fines and costs. (I like the part about criminals NOT getting amnesty)
With the dream act taking care of the present children, this would take care of the problem as most see it.
But it would not be so good for the county of Mexico. These may act as a vacuum cleaner and drain that country of its human assets. (The East / West Germany syndrome)
But then like East / West Germany, at some point there could be unification of North America.
Its not so natural, when your resouce becomes a burden to society. Never before has so many immigrants (legal and illegal) immigrants been on welfare. But the largest growing population of Welfare in this county is illegal immigrants from south of the border. You can spin it all you want, it is a fact!
Yes, I now that most of the Welfare goes to the children on illegal immigrants, but this is not a natural way to allow people to become prosperous, no it is the opposite. If we are to have the influx of immigrants from South of the border, then I would recommend all welfare be eliminated, so it does not become the ball and chain around the American peoples neck, as it has become here in California.
30% of Welfare is here in this state and guess who the Welfare recipients are?
I am ok with allowing a guess worker program from Mexico, I think it is a bad idea to allow workers to come here and go on welfare to support their children.
Cut the Welfare and the CREAM OF THE CROP will stay and the needy will go!
You know what I feel like saying, is: The US, and particularly the Southwest, is just gonna keep on getting more Latino, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. SUCK ON THAT INSECURE GRINGOS! (and i say this as a very proud, secure Gringo.)
Also, the United States federal government would have to consult with Mexican officials before commencement of any fence construction on the U.S. side of the border. NO I DON”T THINK SO!
rd by which judges determine who is eligible for refugee status from “clear and convincing evidence” to “substantial evidence.” YEAH, we really need to give Social Justice judges more power. NO I DON’T THINK SO!
Prohibits state and local law enforcement officers from helping the federal government enforce immigration violations, which they are presently allowed to do. YEAH, AND WE REALLY THINK THE FEDS WOULD ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAWS! NO!
Sets forth interior enforcement provisions, including provisions respecting: (1) alien terrorists; (2) alien street gang members; (3) illegal entry and reentry; (4) passport and immigration fraud; (5) criminal aliens; (6) voluntary departure; (7) detention and alternatives; (8) criminal penalties; (9) alien smuggling; (10) tribal lands security; (11) state and local enforcement of immigration laws; (12) NO, NO!
Authorizes a border relief grant program for a tribal, state, or local law enforcement agency in a county: (1) no more than 100 miles (160 km) from a U.S. border with Canada or Mexico; or (2) more than 100 miles (160 km) from any such border but which; YEAH, WE REALLY NEED TO SPEND MONEY ON TRIBAL LAW!
MQ says:
Just a few reason why the American People know this Immigration Reform is just CRAP!
They can come! The American people are ok with that, but there will be no red carpet any more and no Daddy Welfare!
Suck on that!
🙂
MQ,
“Just a few reason why the American People know this Immigration Reform is just CRAP!”
Why am I not surprised that you feel this way?
MQ thinks she and her followers speak for the American people.
The fact is that various polls show that over 60% of the American peoplee support immigration reform.
MQ is delusional.
MQ wrote,
“Suck on that!”
You are such a dominatrix. LOL
A usually reliable source has stated that the facebook group is actually ran by friends of mansoor and the costa mesa improvers.
You are such a dominatrix. LOL
No wonder the nasty wench feels like she is being flirted with by her Latino inquisitors.
She IS being flirted with by her Latino inquisitors.
Its in the blood big guy!
🙂
latinos and the Irish have a lot in common Mr. Vern…. We like a good fight!
May the best man or in this case woman WIN!
eric
Posted May 24, 2010 at 3:41 PM
A usually reliable source has stated that the facebook group is actually ran by friends of mansoor and the costa mesa improvers.
Yes, Monsoor is playing the politics to get elected. He denies playing poltics with his “city of laws” resolution. He is getting on the bandwagon of illegal immigrant hating for political manipulation.
His business community should take notice of his irresponsibility for inciting their loos of business,
Costa Mesa’s business community should be fuming mad for Monsoor using his political self serving interest causing them economic difficulties especially during this time of economic instability.
ALL ORANGE COUNTY BUSINESSES AND THEIR CUSTOMERS SHOULD BOYCOTT MONSOOR AND THOSE THAT FACILITATE HIS MANIPULATIONS.
“Yes, Monsoor is playing the politics to get elected.”
What does this mean, that he is actually doing what the people want. YOU know those pesky Citizens!
Wow, what a novelty!
Now, I get why Santa Ana is a hopeless pit, the repres. there do what the illegal immigrants and their vendors want!
Keep enlightening me Doctor, its quite revealing!
good doctor they also support the az law i belive 80 percent .
MQ,
“What does this mean, that he is actually doing what the people want. YOU know those pesky Citizens!”
Let me more clear for your benefit. That reading comprehension problem you have.
If Eric is correct then Monsoor is playing the Hispanics to follow a boycott constructed by him. This is to get you and your clan to spew you hate and get support for him.
This is done, if Eric is correct, at the expense of Costa Mesa’s business community.
I am just blown away how you got to “he is actually doing what the people want”.
I am not really surprised as you were spinning as you always do to get back to your propaganda.
“Now, I get why Santa Ana is a hopeless pit, the repres. there do what the illegal immigrants and their vendors want!”
What the hell is this ????? Oh yeah another opportunity for you to spew your agenda in order to incite and spread your hatred.
I AM HAPPY TO KEEP REVEALING YOU MQ.
“Now, I get why Santa Ana is a hopeless pit, the repres. there do what the illegal immigrants and their vendors want!” What the hell is this ?????
MQ says:
I will be happy to reveal to YOU ‘what the hell THIS means”
Santa Ana is and will continue to be a city of major crime unless Mansoor takes it over. The vendors being the local government, Non-profits, etc…… does not want the likes of Mansoor in the city that is OOOOOO so GOOOOOD for federal funding and State funding!
Is it not ironic that Santa Ana with its thousands of illegal immigrants is built up around the federal and state buildings, I guess the sheep do not stray too far from the shepherds!
And of course all the Non-profits are stationed in Santa Ana… ummm, now why is that?
You do not need to reveal me, my answers are all up front and honest!
To know me is to know me!
MQ,
“Santa Ana is and will continue to be a city of major crime unless Mansoor takes it over. ”
How is Monsoor going to take over Santa Ana? His plan is not working in his city so how would his ideas that you support solve Santa Ana’s issues?
The solution to crime and other social problems is done by eliminating poverty through inclusion of all it’s residents and economic development that directly benefits the residents of the city.
The objective of those like me is to change Santa Ana into a majority middle class and higher, by offering economic opportunity to the current and future residents of Santa Ana.
Your solution along with Monsoor and your clan is to deport all Mexicans legal or not. This
will never happen.
You are totally going insane. You remind me of those crazy people that think they are being followed by black helicopters.
You have developed a case of paranoia.
“The objective of those like me is to change Santa Ana into a majority middle class and higher, by offering economic opportunity to the current and future residents of Santa Ana.”
As much as I do respect you and I really do. You do not have the balls to clean up Santa Ana.
When Kids can go to school in Santa Ana without police presence, then their might be a glimmer of hope.
When parents are expected to act like parents, then maybe there will be a glimmer of hope. Until then, Santa Ana will always be a shit hole.
People like Mansoor don’t give a CRAP about who they offend. They care about who they were elected to serve!
I know deporting thousands of people is not an option, making them accountable is!
You have a good heart Doctor, but you need BALLS!
Good night Doc!
“The solution to crime and other social problems is done by eliminating poverty through inclusion of all it’s residents and economic development that directly benefits the residents of the city.”
MQ says:
Sorry I am tired. One last thing!
If Mexico/Central America can’t do the above, how the heck do you intend too!
Education most be the focus!
yeah, yeah, I know my spelling and grammar is AWFUL!
MQ,
Go to bed and rest, you are not making any sense. More so than normal.
Many of us are supporting Alfredo Amezcua for mayor of Santa Ana. His leadership will provide the inclusiveness and economic opportunity to produce the escape from poverty and so elevate the middle class numbers in the city.
Is this the courage (balls) you were referring to?
No!
Many of us are supporting Alfredo Amezcua for mayor of Santa Ana. His leadership will provide the inclusiveness and economic opportunity to produce the escape from poverty and so elevate the middle class numbers in the city.
From Wikipedia:
Effects of poverty
Research has found that there is a high risk of educational underachievement for children who are from low-income housing circumstances. This often is a process that begins in primary school for some less fortunate children. In the US educational system, these children are at a higher risk than other children for retention in their grade, special placements during the school’s hours and even not completing their high school education.[67] There are indeed many explanations for why students tend to drop out of school. For children with low resources, the risk factors are similar to excuses such as juvenile delinquency rates, higher levels of teenage pregnancy, and the economic dependency upon their low income parent or parents.[67]
Families and society who submit low levels of investment in the education and development of less fortunate children end up with less favorable results for the children who see a life of parental employment reduction and low wages. Higher rates of early childbearing with all the connected risks to family, health and well-being are majorly important issues to address since education from preschool to high school are both identifiably meaningful in a life.[67]
Poverty often drastically affects children’s success in school. A child’s “home activities, preferences, mannerisms” must align with the world and in the cases that they do not these students are at a disadvantage in the school and most importantly the classroom.[68] Therefore, it is safe to state that children who live at or below the poverty level will have far less success educationally than children who live above the poverty line. Poor children have a great deal less healthcare and this ultimately results in many absences from the academic year. Additionally, poor children are much more likely to suffer from hunger, fatigue, irritability, headaches, ear infections, flu, and colds.[68] These illnesses could potentially restrict a child or student’s focus and concentration.
curious….what’s the record for most comments in an OJ thread? this is the most i’ve seen in awhile. if we still have a ways to go, let me know. i’m down to bait MQ for a couple more responses, LOL!
Michelle Quinn the pretend IRISH woman is a troll.
How are the rest of your CM improver buddies?
AMNESTY FOR ALL!
“Families and society who submit low levels of investment in the education and development of less fortunate children end up with less favorable results for the children who see a life of parental employment reduction and low wages. Higher rates of early childbearing with all the connected risks to family, health and well-being are majorly important issues to address since education from preschool to high school are both identifiably meaningful in a life.[67]”
MQ says:
The population of Santa Ana mostly are low-income people who have immigrated here illegally – what is you’re new hero going to do with people who in a lot of cases cannot read and write in their own language?
Unless Someone steps up to the plate and fights to make Santa Ana public school district an actually place of education instead of a day care center for the children of illegal immigrants, then the cycle of poverty will continue. Unless someone addresses the hugh underage pregnancy issue in Santa Ana more of the poor will be created!
You can Wick all you like Doctor the fixes that are needed for Santa Ana are obvious, but no one wants to take it on!
Many of the cities had a curfew that was very successful in getting children off the streets during school days. Santa Ana being the city with a real gang problem did not implement the curfew, because it would not be politically popular. The gang problem could be eliminated over night if the police were not afraid of scumbags groups like the ACLU.
Why do you think ACLU set up shop in Santa Ana?
Fella’s I won’t be able to debate much today because I have a large work load, so I am not being rude by not replying to your post’s.
Have a brilliant day:)
Michelle did you stop taking your meds again?
Michelle do you really think people take you seriously?
MQ,
Your concerns are a product of poverty. Therefore the cure is economic opportunity in order to escape poverty.
The concept is not difficult to understand. You won’t accept it because it does away with your agenda of demonetization in order to spread hate.
Your agenda is to have people believe that poverty is cultural in Mexican society.
Please see below in particular this part:
“Max Weber and the modernization theory suggest that cultural values could affect economic success.[52][53] However, researchers[who?] have gathered evidence that suggest that values are not as deeply ingrained and that changing economic opportunities explain most of the movement into and out of poverty, as opposed to shifts in values.[54]”
Barriers to opportunities(From Wikipedia):
The unwillingness of governments and feudal elites to give full-fledged property rights of land to their tenants is cited as the chief obstacle to development.[36] This lack of economic freedom inhibits entrepreneurship among the poor.[5] New enterprises and foreign investment can be driven away by the results of inefficient institutions, notably corruption, weak rule of law and excessive bureaucratic burdens.[4][5] Lack of financial services, as a result of restrictive regulations, such as the requirements for banking licenses, makes it hard for hard for even smaller microsavings programs to reach the poor.[37]
It takes two days, two bureaucratic procedures, and $280 to open a business in Canada while an entrepreneur in Bolivia must pay $2,696 in fees, wait 82 business days, and go through 20 procedures to do the same.[5] Such costly barriers favor big firms at the expense of small enterprises, where most jobs are created.[5] In India before economic reforms, businesses had to bribe government officials even for routine activities, which was a tax on business in effect.[4]
Corruption, for example, in Nigeria, led to an estimated $400 billion of the country’s oil revenue to be stolen by Nigeria’s leaders between 1960 and 1999.[38][39] Lack of opportunities can further be caused by the failure of governments to provide essential infrastructure.[40][41].
Opportunities in richer countries drives talent away, leading to brain drains. This is mainly caused by richer countries’ restrictions on Freedom of Movement of the poor, uneducated class. Entry visas are granted with much higher probability to the rich and educated of developing countries. Brain drain has cost the African continent over $4 billion in the employment of 150,000 expatriate professionals annually.[42] Indian students going abroad for their higher studies costs India a foreign exchange outflow of $10 billion annually.[43]
Poor health and education severely affects productivity. Inadequate nutrition in childhood undermines the ability of individuals to develop their full capabilities. Lack of essential minerals such as iodine and iron can impair brain development. 2 billion people (one-third of the total global population) are affected by iodine deficiency. In developing countries, it is estimated that 40% of children aged 4 and younger suffer from anemia because of insufficient iron in their diets. See also Health and intelligence.[44]
Similarly substance abuse, including for example alcoholism and drug abuse can consign people to vicious poverty cycles.[citation needed] Infectious diseases such as Malaria and tuberculosis can perpetuate poverty by diverting health and economic resources from investment and productivity; malaria decreases GDP growth by up to 1.3% in some developing nations and AIDS decreases African growth by 0.3-1.5% annually.[45][46][47]
War, political instability and crime, including violent gangs and drug cartels, also discourage investment. Civil wars and conflicts in Africa cost the continent some $300 billion between 1990 and 2005.[48] Eritrea and Ethiopia spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the war that resulted in minor border changes.[49] Shocks in the business cycle affect poverty rates, increasing in recessions and declining in booms. Cultural factors, such as discrimination of various kinds, can negatively affect productivity such as age discrimination, stereotyping,[50] gender discrimination, racial discrimination, and caste discrimination.[51]
Max Weber and the modernization theory suggest that cultural values could affect economic success.[52][53] However, researchers[who?] have gathered evidence that suggest that values are not as deeply ingrained and that changing economic opportunities explain most of the movement into and out of poverty, as opposed to shifts in values.[54]
“Your concerns are a product of poverty. Therefore the cure is economic opportunity in order to escape poverty.”
MQ says:
Yeah, ok you build those factories in Santa Ana, but I suggest you start working on false social security numbers!
“Michelle did you stop taking your meds again?”
MQ says:
I think you have mistaken me for someone you met in the nut house, I have never been there!
Michelle do you really think people take you seriously?
MQ says:
I don’t know, do you?
And I think it’s: “Michelle, really do you think people take you seriously?”
MQ says:
Michelle Quinn the pretend IRISH woman is a troll.
13E Divis Flats, Falls Road, Northern Ireland….. Look it up!
As far as being a troll, beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
Ok, Foe, I must go!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falls_Road,_Belfast
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4211920/immigration-law-success?playlist_id=86912
Do this in Santa Ana and things will be looking up for the city!
Pr. William May Revisit Immigrant Policy
Supervisor Wants Police Checks Ended
By Kristen Mack
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 24, 2008
A Prince William County supervisor said yesterday that he will seek to repeal a key part of the county’s illegal immigration policy that directs police officers to check the citizenship or immigration status of criminal suspects they believe might be in the country unlawfully.
Frank J. Principi (D-Woodbridge), the only supervisor who was not on the board when it approved the crackdown in October, said he will offer a resolution Tuesday to rescind police enforcement.
It is the first time that a county board member has challenged the underpinning of the crackdown, which in addition to increasing law enforcement denies certain services to illegal immigrants. The policy, which took effect March 3, has led to crowding at the county jail and a request from the police for video cameras in patrol cars to protect officers from accusations of racial profiling.
Principi’s concern was prompted by a unanimous board vote Tuesday night to slash $3.1 million from the 2009 budget for enforcement of the policy, including the video cameras.
“If we turn off the budget spigot, we’ll need to revisit the policy as well,” Principi said.
Chairman Corey A. Stewart (R-At Large), one of the architects of the crackdown who recommended trimming cameras out of the budget, said the board does not need to reconsider the policy.
But Principi said the policy has had “significant unintended consequences” such as the cost of housing illegal immigrants at the Prince William jail. Crowding at the jail had hit an all-time high because federal immigration officials were taking weeks, not the agreed-upon 72 hours, to pick up suspected illegal immigrants.
During the first month of the policy, 41 illegal immigrants were arrested. Police Chief Charlie T. Deane said most of the people arrested would have gone to jail anyway. All but two were charged with misdemeanors and felonies unrelated to their immigration status.
Principi is asking why the police need to check a person’s citizenship status on the street when it would be checked automatically once the person is brought to the jail under a federal policy that went into effect in the summer. Under a partnership with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), jurisdictions can deputize local law enforcement to assist federal authorities in processing illegal immigrants.
“It goes to heart of whether we should have police enforcement in the field and on the street,” Principi said. “There are three reasons why we don’t need the resolution Corey Stewart shoved down our throats: We can’t afford it. We can’t rely on ICE to pick up those we do arrest. We lack capacity on the board as an oversight group. Why are we self-inflicting this wound in a [budget] deficit situation?”
Principi said he believes a majority of the board members are willing to discuss the future of the illegal immigration policy. Some supervisors said they want to wait until the county staff offers recommendations on how to carry out the policy without cameras in patrol cars.
Stewart said the board does not need to rethink police enforcement of the crackdown.
“We are not going to revisit the policy,” he said. “No significant changes will be made. There will be no impact on the numbers of illegal immigrants arrested, brought to the jail or handed over to federal authorities.”
Even though the entire board supported doing away with the cameras, some supervisors remain torn. Supervisor Martin E. Nohe (R-Coles) said he is not comfortable putting police officers on the street without video cameras to create visual evidence and shield officers from complaints of racial profiling.
“It’s a big-ticket item none of us thought we were talking about in October,” he said. “We have to see if there is a cheaper way to do this.”
Doc,
the article you posted is from 2008.
The fox report is recent.
The county law has been a big hit with even the crtics.
Az will have the same results, which of course it is not good news for you and the rest of the pro-illegal alien groups!
I bet you with in a year a lot of states will be doing the same thing!
HAHAHAHHA MQ correcting grammar? LMFAO!!!!!!!
MQ,
The video you posted is based on the study of the law by the University of Virginia on 08-04-09
Part of the study is below. The video is mostly spin on the facts below.
The point on my previous post is that all of the supervisors were not comfortable with the law except the guy in the video.
Conclusions:
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
A Contentious Process
of Policy Formulation
Large, rapid demographic change in the County 2000-2006
Once started, action by the BOCS was speedy
Very public controversy over the policy
Prominently featured in local and regional media
The publicity and public conflict may have had as much effect on the immigrant community as the policy itself
BOCS gave tight deadlines for implementation of this major policy change
Police and County staff had 60 – 90 days to develop details
Policy was modified by BOCS in April 2008
Changed to cover only those physically arrested
19
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
3. Effects on Crime Show:
Mixed indications
Illegal immigrants were just 3-5% of those arrested for crime (Mar – Dec 2008).
PERF analyzed PWCPD ‘calls for service’ data for past ten years
Several types of crime and disorder calls have declined significantly (-2% to -11%) since policy went into effect
Calls about violent crime are down by -9% to -11%
Less crime . . . Or less reporting?
Citizen survey (2008) shows no difference in crime reporting rate between Hispanics and others
Effects on crime, continued . . .
Crime statistics from PWCPD show a 36% decline in aggravated assaults in 2008
But illegal immigrants are just 3% of those arrested for this type of crime
The policy may have contributed to reductions in some forms of crime and disorder, including violent crime.
But violent crime is down slightly across the region
The policy is a reasonable way of targeting serious offenders who are illegal immigrants.
28
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
4. Large-Scale Implementation
Would be Challenging
In the first eight months of the policy, 76% of arrests of illegal immigrants were for:
Public drunkenness
Driving without a license
DUI
ICE has struggled to keep up with flow of persons detained by PWC for immigration violations.
It would not be possible for ICE to keep up if many localities adopted a similar policy
6. Changes in the Community
Associated with
the Policy
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
7. Some Immigrants Left,
Growth of Immigrants Slowed or Halted
There are no hard data on counts of illegal immigrants before or after the policy was enacted.
Multiple informants, from the community and from local agencies, agree that some people left because of the policy and the controversy about it.
Supportive data (not conclusive):
Lower ESL enrollments in local schools, Sept 2008
Decrease in births to uninsured mothers
Individuals detained and turned over to ICE
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
More on loss of immigrants . . .
We estimate that several thousand illegal immigrants left when the policy was enacted
Economic crisis contributed
Mortgage crisis
Loss of construction jobs, housing market decline
Growth in immigrant population was rapid and increasing 2000 – 2006
The pattern of rising growth has halted
The growth was probably reversed
The police policy was partly responsible for the shift
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
8. Overcrowded Housing and
Loitering Declined
Neighborhood services records show dramatic decline in complaints about parking in overcrowded properties
Down 38% from 2006 to 2008
Residents reported less loitering at day labor sites
But this problem came back after its initial decline
Mortgage foreclosures reached crisis proportions
Complaints about neglected vacant properties went up substantially
Weed/tall grass violations doubled from 2006 to 2008
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
9. Little Evidence for
Improved Sense of Safety
Some individuals reported feeling safer after the policy was implemented
Especially those in neighborhoods that had experienced problems with overcrowding, public drunkenness
But there was no decline in county-wide perceptions of safety (as measured in annual citizen surveys) during the years when immigration increased
And there was no overall increase in the feeling of safety in the 2008 citizen survey
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
10. Hispanic Perceptions
of PWC Became Negative
Overall . . .
Police implemented the policy smoothly, with a high level of effort and professionalism
The policy has had significant effects
Some of these match the multiple goals
Some of these are negative for the County
The social costs of the policy were high
Sharp ethnic disparities in perception emerged in the 2008 Citizen Survey
Center for Survey Research
University of Virginia
Cost effective study would be interesting.
Doc,
The law in Virginia has been enacted for three years. Where in this study does it talk about profiling?
“Police implemented the policy smoothly, with a high level of effort and professionalism”
I bet the fact it does not even mention profiling makes a lot of hispanic blowhards very upset!
Cheers:)
MQ: the fox report is recent, but it’s a fox report, LOL!
MQ: here’s a homework assignment. the fox report interviewer said that the law “is almost identical” to SB 1070. It’s a quick slight of hand that will trick the uninformed and wipes out the backlash that occurred. Now, instead of just spewing things, try and actually find out what happened there!
You may find that the nativist extremist group FAIR helped craft both pieces of legislation, but that’s not it. You may also find that the guest for Virgina – behaving much as you do – exaggerates the hype of ‘crime rates’ going down as undocumented immigrants leaving town:
That ‘left-wing rag’, “The Wall Street Journal,” recently noted that: ‘In Phoenix, police spokesman Trent Crump said, “Despite all the hype, in every single reportable crime category, we’re significantly down.” Mr. Crump said Phoenix’s most recent data for 2010 indicated still lower crime. For the first quarter of 2010, violent crime was down 17% overall in the city, while homicides were down 38% and robberies 27%, compared with the same period in 2009. Arizona’s major cities all registered declines.”
Ok, so why didn’t the Fox report interviewer bring this up as a counterpoint to the Virginia guest?
HYPE, HYPE, HYPE! Like Flava Flav said, “Don’t believe the hype!”
even with that, that’s not the slight of hand trick. good luck in your research!
Reply
MQ
Posted May 25, 2010 at 6:46 PM
Doc,
The law in Virginia has been enacted for three years. Where in this study does it talk about profiling?
“Police implemented the policy smoothly, with a high level of effort and professionalism”
I bet the fact it does not even mention profiling makes a lot of hispanic blowhards very upset!
Cheers:)
Again your severe problem with reading and comprehension.
Policy was modified by BOCS in April 2008
Changed to cover only those physically arrested. This is different from the SB1070 law.
The point in the Virginia University study is that none of the reasons for the law .. illegal immigrant crime and providing safety from the illegal immigrant crime element was real.
Only the racist, economic and political manipulation element remains for implimentation of these laws.
boycott boycotts!