sho nuff
Footballguy
Ahh more baseless accusations of fraud.They would still be ineligible, but they'd still vote...just like now.
Ahh more baseless accusations of fraud.They would still be ineligible, but they'd still vote...just like now.
lol. This might be what a lot of people would do, but it certainly is not principled.Depends on the job. Sometimes it probably works out to under minimum wage; sometimes over. The whole point of independent contractor work is that you don’t worry about it. I pay for convenience and availability.
Yep. This is where a lexical change indicates a nullification of the other side of the debate. It's a disingenuous act. It's a way to use language and manipulate it to skip contentious premises of the debate. Instead of being able to say, "they're breaking the law by being here, and that's illegal," we're now asked to only refer to their immigration status, which is not the whole of their existence vís a vís the law.It is.
I don't have a problem with illegal immigrants, and I'm happy to defend that position without trying to define the other side out of existence, which is what this thread is really about.
None of this is true. First off I’m not trying to impose anything- I’m suggesting a change. I made it clear in the first post that I don’t condemn anyone who used the term “illegals”. I would like to change that term, cancel it out. That’s my proposal but I can’t force anyone to do it.Yep. This is where a lexical change indicates a nullification of the other side of the debate. It's a disingenuous act. It's a way to use language and manipulate it to skip contentious premises of the debate. Instead of being able to say, "they're breaking the law by being here, and that's illegal," we're now asked to only refer to their immigration status, which is not the whole of their existence vís a vís the law.
It's like Twitter banning deadnaming. It seeks to impose an ideology through the use or non-use of terms. Twitter decided you couldn't refer to trans people by their given name and called it inherent bullying, skipping the whole debate about whether or not people who knew the person formerly could use their former name, when it was appropriate to do so, etc. It just blitzkrieged a whole bunch of issues pertaining to that.
Thus it is with this.
The reason there is a movement to call them ""undocumented" is to presume their eventual citizenship in the United States. It skips the whole tricky element of legality and deportation. The term whitewashes the whole mess of that away. He's simply "undocumented," which means he has no proof of citizenship, not "here illegally," which means he's committing a crime by the status of his location. Words mean things, as the left around here is fond of saying.None of this is true. First off I’m not trying to impose anything- I’m suggesting a change. I made it clear in the first post that I don’t condemn anyone who used the term “illegals”. I would like to change that term, cancel it out. That’s my proposal but I can’t force anyone to do it.
As to why I’m suggesting this, I explained my exact motivation in the first post as well: because I believe the term to be dehumanizing. I’m not trying to impose any kind of ideology here. There is no plot. There is only exactly what I wrote,
Depends on the job. Sometimes it probably works out to under minimum wage; sometimes over. The whole point of independent contractor work is that you don’t worry about it. I pay for convenience and availability.
At least you honest about being pro-criminal immigrant to suit you're own needs and avoid paying a living wage.Some of the posts here about unions and wages crack me up. The guys I hire occasionally that hang around the Home Depot parking lot have a far greater intuitive understanding of capitalism than do many of the so-called “conservatives” in this forum and elsewhere.
Excuse me, he asked you to call them criminal immigrants.Illegal Immigrants is fine. Illegal Cheap Labor Immigrants is too long to type out.
This says it as good as any.Yep. This is where a lexical change indicates a nullification of the other side of the debate. It's a disingenuous act. It's a way to use language and manipulate it to skip contentious premises of the debate. Instead of being able to say, "they're breaking the law by being here, and that's illegal," we're now asked to only refer to their immigration status, which is not the whole of their existence vís a vís the law.
It's like Twitter banning deadnaming. It seeks to impose an ideology through the use or non-use of terms. Twitter decided you couldn't refer to trans people by their given name and called it inherent bullying, skipping the whole debate about whether or not people who knew the person formerly could use their former name, when it was appropriate to do so, etc. It just blitzkrieged a whole bunch of issues pertaining to that.
Thus it is with this.
I think people are either misunderstanding independent contractor laws or misunderstanding me. Let’s be clear:The whole point is you don’t worry about it?You don’t worry about paying workers less than minimum wage for manual labor? I find this statement repugnant if I’m being honest. Also, I’m not certain your practices are 100% legal under California and federal law.
There's nothing dehumanizing about it -- illegal immigrants are called that because they're a) immigrants who b) are here illegally. That's important because their immigration status creates all sorts of barriers and uncertainty that naturalized immigrants don't have to deal with. How we deal with illegal immigration is also an important policy issue. I think we should go easy on illegal immigrants and make it relatively easy for them to convert to legal citizenship -- it's hard to even make that argument if I can't say forthrightly that I'm talking about illegal immigrants specifically and not immigrants as a group.None of this is true. First off I’m not trying to impose anything- I’m suggesting a change. I made it clear in the first post that I don’t condemn anyone who used the term “illegals”. I would like to change that term, cancel it out. That’s my proposal but I can’t force anyone to do it.
As to why I’m suggesting this, I explained my exact motivation in the first post as well: because I believe the term to be dehumanizing. I’m not trying to impose any kind of ideology here. There is no plot. There is only exactly what I wrote,
This is kind of amusing. I tell you that you’re incorrect about what my motivation is, and explain it exactly (for the second time because you can find it in the OP), and your response is again to dismiss my explanation and tell me exactly what I REALLY want.The reason there is a movement to call them ""undocumented" is to presume their eventual citizenship in the United States. It skips the whole tricky element of legality and deportation. The term whitewashes the whole mess of that away. He's simply "undocumented," which means he has no proof of citizenship, not "here illegally," which means he's committing a crime by the status of his location. Words mean things, as the left around here is fond of saying.
It's interesting the things you decide to judge people for and not judge them for...and do yourself.I think people are either misunderstanding independent contractor laws or misunderstanding me. Let’s be clear:
1. As a property manager of several shopping centers, from time to time I need temporary manual labor. A couple of hours work max. So I go to Home Depot, describe the work, and pay whatever these guys want to charge me. I assume some of them are undocumented. I don’t know. I hire them because, frankly, there is nobody else to do it.
2. I don’t pay any “non-temporary” employees under the table. Never have. What I do is perfectly legal under the laws of California, and, IMO, perfectly ethical.
3. That said, I don’t judge those who hire these people full time and pay them under the table. I wouldn’t do it but I get it- it’s a minor crime, like jaywalking or coming across the border. I classify this sort of crime, like any black market, as the result of too many restrictions on capitalism.
It is.I’ve always assumed it was shorthand for “immigrants who entered the country illegally”.
Tim, you’re taking a stance of the left and making it your own.This is kind of amusing. I tell you that you’re incorrect about what my motivation is, and explain it exactly (for the second time because you can find it in the OP), and your response is again to dismiss my explanation and tell me exactly what I REALLY want.
Tell you what, why don’t you start the thread next time? You can title it “Tim says:” and then explain my ideas and why I want them. Then I won’t have to bother.
It’s absolutely dehumanizing. Here is an opinion piece that explains why far more eloquently than I’ve been able to express here:There's nothing dehumanizing about it -- illegal immigrants are called that because they're a) immigrants who b) are here illegally. That's important because their immigration status creates all sorts of barriers and uncertainty that naturalized immigrants don't have to deal with. How we deal with illegal immigration is also an important policy issue. I think we should go easy on illegal immigrants and make it relatively easy for them to convert to legal citizenship -- it's hard to even make that argument if I can't say forthrightly that I'm talking about illegal immigrants specifically and not immigrants as a group.
No.It’s absolutely dehumanizing. Here is an opinion piece that explains why far more eloquently than I’ve been able to express here:
https://bordercrossinglaw.com/nohumanbeingisillegal
I reject that this issue, or any of my views on this subject, have anything to do with the left. As far as I’m concerned, this has always been a libertarian matter.Tim, you’re taking a stance of the left and making it your own.
You may be noble and only care about how ugly calling them illegal sounds and how it may hurt their feelings. (I question how much debate immigrants read on the PSF and other message boards and how much sleep they lose over being called illegal).
But the rest of the Left is trying to minimize the problem and redefine the conversation.
From your article:It’s absolutely dehumanizing. Here is an opinion piece that explains why far more eloquently than I’ve been able to express here:
https://bordercrossinglaw.com/nohumanbeingisillegal
Nobody who uses the term "illegal immigrant" thinks that the individual in question is illegal, and the author is perfectly aware of that. This type of argument is 100% made in bad faith.When one refers to an immigrant as an "illegal alien," they are using the term as a noun. They are effectively saying that the individual, as opposed to any actions that the individual has taken, is illegal.
Yes. Tim heart is good.Tim, you’re taking a stance of the left and making it your own.
You may be noble and only care about how ugly calling them illegal sounds and how it may hurt their feelings. (I question how much debate immigrants read on the PSF and other message boards and how much sleep they lose over being called illegal).
But the rest of the Left is trying to minimize the problem and redefine the conversation.
Thats not true. Some actually DO think this. But more importantly, the stigma created (sometimes unintentionally) affects the undocumented people in many ways. It’s not bad faith at all.From your article:
Nobody who uses the term "illegal immigrant" thinks that the individual in question is illegal, and the author is perfectly aware of that. This type of argument is 100% made in bad faith.
Name a person who thinks that anybody's existence is against the law.Thats not true. Some actually DO think this.
OMGThats not true. Some actually DO think this. But more importantly, the stigma created (sometimes unintentionally) affects the undocumented people in many ways. It’s not bad faith at all.
People have got to stop attempting to interpret the motivations of others. It’s absolutely poisoning all of our discussions in this forum. And yes I do it too, and it’s really bad form. We need to stick to offering our own opinions and not tell folks what the other guy really wants.
You're the one embarking on a mind-reading exercise about the motivations of people who use a perfectly accurate term.People have got to stop attempting to interpret the motivations of others.
It's really not amusing what the left is doing to language in order to stifle the premises of the illegal immigration debate from being discussed. It's trying to lexically replace part of the debate by replacing the term with another assumptive one. It's Newspeak.This is kind of amusing. I tell you that you’re incorrect about what my motivation is, and explain it exactly (for the second time because you can find it in the OP), and your response is again to dismiss my explanation and tell me exactly what I REALLY want.
Tell you what, why don’t you start the thread next time? You can title it “Tim says:” and then explain my ideas and why I want them. Then I won’t have to bother.
In real life I talked to many people who have said “they’re illegal, they shouldn’t be here.” In this thread, @tonydead posted the hashtag “send them back”, a call for mass deportation.Name a person who thinks that anybody's existence is against the law.
You know that I normally agree with some of your positions or at least could defend them - how can you possibly say you don’t condemn someone but then you call it dehumanizing language? You are basically contradicting yourself in one paragraph.None of this is true. First off I’m not trying to impose anything- I’m suggesting a change. I made it clear in the first post that I don’t condemn anyone who used the term “illegals”. I would like to change that term, cancel it out. That’s my proposal but I can’t force anyone to do it.
As to why I’m suggesting this, I explained my exact motivation in the first post as well: because I believe the term to be dehumanizing. I’m not trying to impose any kind of ideology here. There is no plot. There is only exactly what I wrote,
This was too funny for words. You're posting an op-ed as some sort of fact entered into evidence in favor of your contention?It’s absolutely dehumanizing. Here is an opinion piece that explains why far more eloquently than I’ve been able to express here:
https://bordercrossinglaw.com/nohumanbeingisillegal
No I’m not. Please read my OP again. I don’t question anyone’s use the term on this issue. I’m trying to convince people not to use the term. I want you to change your mind.You're the one embarking on a mind-reading exercise about the motivations of people who use a perfectly accurate term.
Other than maybe his family, who’s really going to miss Dane Cook. Not this guy.Name a person who thinks that anybody's existence is against the law.
I can assure you that I am not misunderstanding independent contractor laws. What I am saying is that just calling them independent contractors or engaging them on a temporary basis doesn’t make them so. It is a fact-intensive inquiry that requires the application and analysis of a myriad of factors, under both state and federal laws (including IRS regs). What I am saying is that you should not be as certain as you are that what you are doing is “perfectly legal.” Based on the limited information you have provided in this thread, I know where I’m leaning. Out of respect for you and your business, I will leave it at that and say no more.I think people are either misunderstanding independent contractor laws or misunderstanding me. Let’s be clear:
1. As a property manager of several shopping centers, from time to time I need temporary manual labor. A couple of hours work max. So I go to Home Depot, describe the work, and pay whatever these guys want to charge me. I assume some of them are undocumented. I don’t know. I hire them because, frankly, there is nobody else to do it.
2. I don’t pay any “non-temporary” employees under the table. Never have. What I do is perfectly legal under the laws of California, and, IMO, perfectly ethical.
3. That said, I don’t judge those who hire these people full time and pay them under the table. I wouldn’t do it but I get it- it’s a minor crime, like jaywalking or coming across the border. I classify this sort of crime, like any black market, as the result of too many restrictions on capitalism.
Like almost everybody has caught on to, this isn't about decency, tim. It's about debate. That you've accepted the debate premises is one thing. Other people haven't.No I’m not. Please read my OP again. I don’t question anyone’s use the term on this issue. I’m trying to convince people not to use the term. I want you to change your mind.
Yes, it's kind of annoying when people do that, isn't it Tim?and your response is again to dismiss my explanation and tell me exactly what I REALLY want.
This was sort of an "oof," tim. Might want to heed this. I say that with all well-wishes. Something about hiring illegals under the table to do day jobs, and to do that consistently, sounds very wrong. That's not to harp on you, tim. That's to say...wow, do you ever sound way too flippantly casual and wrong about this.I can assure you that I am not misunderstanding independent contractor laws. What I am saying is that just calling them independent contractors or engaging them on a temporary basis doesn’t make them so. It is a fact-intensive inquiry that requires the application and analysis of a myriad of factors, under both state and federal laws (including IRS regs). What I am saying is that you should not be as certain as you are that what you are doing is “perfectly legal.” Based on the limited information you have provided in this thread, I know where I’m leaning. Out of respect for you and your business, I will leave it at that and say no more.
As for the last point, when a business hires undocumented workers and pays them under the table, it’s not a minor crime like jaywalking. I’ve known people who have faced federal investigation and lost million dollar businesses as a result. Penalties include civil fines and possible jail time. Your assertion in number three makes me question your certainty as to the other legal points in your post even more.
When I was a kid most people used the phrase “mentally ######” to describe mental challenged individuals. Most people had no bad intentions by using the term. Still, we don’t use it anymore. I’d like to reach a point when we don’t use “illegal” as a noun. But I’m not condemning anyone who does it now because we’re not at that point or close to it.You know that I normally agree with some of your positions or at least could defend them - how can you possibly say you don’t condemn someone but then you call it dehumanizing language? You are basically contradicting yourself in one paragraph.
I should clarify that my third point was my opinion only: it should be a minor crime. I do recognize that in many instances it isn’t.I can assure you that I am not misunderstanding independent contractor laws. What I am saying is that just calling them independent contractors or engaging them on a temporary basis doesn’t make them so. It is a fact-intensive inquiry that requires the application and analysis of a myriad of factors, under both state and federal laws (including IRS regs). What I am saying is that you should not be as certain as you are that what you are doing is “perfectly legal.” Based on the limited information you have provided in this thread, I know where I’m leaning. Out of respect for you and your business, I will leave it at that and say no more.
As for the last point, when a business hires undocumented workers and pays them under the table, it’s not a minor crime like jaywalking. I’ve known people who have faced federal investigation and lost million dollar businesses as a result. Penalties include civil fines and possible jail time. Your assertion in number three makes me question your certainty as to the other legal points in your post even more.
Exactly. Tim is telling us we mean something hateful by calling people illegal and we need to change our ways.You're the one embarking on a mind-reading exercise about the motivations of people who use a perfectly accurate term.
“consistently”? It’s about once or twice a year.This was sort of an "oof," tim. Might want to heed this. I say that with all well-wishes. Something about hiring illegals under the table to do day jobs, and to do that consistently, sounds very wrong. That's not to harp on you, tim. That's to say...wow, do you ever sound way too flippantly casual and wrong about this.
How much does it have to be before it's wrong?“consistently”? It’s about once or twice a year.
If I needed this work on a more percent basis I’d probably rethink it. But honestly I wouldn’t know where to start. It’s very difficult to even find people to do this sort of work.
They are illegal until they are not.When I was a kid most people used the phrase “mentally ######” to describe mental challenged individuals. Most people had no bad intentions by using the term. Still, we don’t use it anymore. I’d like to reach a point when we don’t use “illegal” as a noun. But I’m not condemning anyone who does it now because we’re not at that point or close to it.
Not at all if I can help it.Exactly. Tim is telling us we mean something hateful by calling people illegal and we need to change our ways.
In debating him, Tim is telling us we’re bad for trying to interpret what he means. Gaslight much, Tim?
He was referring to police taking bribes. Do you really find this analogous?How much does it have to be before it's wrong?
-- Serpico
When you are legally employed and paying taxes, yes people get upset. I would bet many of those people wouldn’t have a problem if they were legal.In real life I talked to many people who have said “they’re illegal, they shouldn’t be here.” In this thread, @tonydead posted the hashtag “send them back”, a call for mass deportation.
Do these folks believe that undocumented immigrants existence should be against the law? I can’t answer that, can’t get into their minds. But they certainly don’t seem to want them around.
Wrong is, well, wrong.He was referring to police taking bribes. Do you really find this analogous?