[BronUVT]

Arizona's policy, which President Felipe Calderon derided during a recent U.S. trip as "discriminatory," states police can't randomly stop people and demand papers, and the law prohibits racial profiling.

Mexican law, however, requires law enforcement officials "to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country before attending to any issues." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...migration-law/

What a hypocrite!!!!!!!!! If we are pulled over or confronted for suspicious activity , we have to present legal ID, so why should it be any different for immigrants. I applaud Arizona for taking a step to solving the problem and I feel the Federal government should be supporting them in this, not filing lawsuits or allowing other countries to file lawsuits against Arizona. I read the bill, and I don't see anything wrong with it. If a person is following the law, then they will not be confronted, so what's the worry? I have a feeling its because many people are illegal immigrants and they need to go. If a person was to stay in another country such as Mexico, they would be deported quickly. If you go back to Mexico without proper papers, you go to jail for two years....so why are we allowing Mexicans to illegally stay here? The USA is too relaxed on this issue compared to other countries.

[Faungarne]

And yet it's good for Social Security:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...ntstaxes_N.htm

The Social Security Administration estimates that about three-quarters of illegal workers pay taxes that contribute to the overall solvency of Social Security and Medicare.

The agency estimates that for 2005, the last year for which figures are available, about $9 billion in taxes was paid on about $75 billion in wages from people who filed W2 forms with incorrect or mismatched data, which would include illegal immigrants who drew paychecks under fake names and Social Security numbers.

Spokesman Mark Hinkle says Social Security does not know how much of the $9 billion can be attributed to illegal immigrants. The number is certainly not 100%, but a significant portion probably comes from taxes paid by illegal immigrants.

Nine billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but it is only about 1.5% of the total $593 billion paid into Social Security in 2005.

The impact on Social Security is significant, though, because most of that money is never claimed by the people who pay it but instead helps cover retirement checks to legal workers.

Federal law prohibits paying Social Security to illegal immigrants, but the administration factors in both legal and illegal immigration when projecting the trust fund's long-term solvency.

This is especially important as the 78 million-member baby boom generation begins to leave the workforce and draw Social Security checks.
"Overall, any type of immigration is a net positive to Social Security. The more people working and paying into the system, the better," Hinkle said. "It does help the system remain solvent."

[dserbokim]

And yet it's good for Social Security:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...ntstaxes_N.htm

And slavery was a benefit to the Economy of the Southern United States ante bellum. Your Point?

[ambientambien]

LOL Are you effing serious? You're comparing slavery--the forced, violent displacement of millions of people against their will--to people migrating across a border to find jobs and feed their families?

I have a strong desire to laugh uncontrollably, but also a strong desire to reach through the internet and punch you.

[Enrivaanonock]

LOL Are you effing serious? You're comparing slavery--the forced, violent displacement of millions of people against their will--to people migrating across a border to find jobs and feed their families?

I have a strong desire to laugh uncontrollably, but also a strong desire to reach through the internet and punch you.

Just put you on ignore, for your threat of violence , lets see if the admins have the courage and do the correct thing and say bye to you.

[Sheelldaw]

Because one can actually do that, reach through the internet and hurt someone physically? Please explain how to do that. I have several cans of whoop ass I'd like to open up.

[ñàéäèíã]

Because one can actually do that, reach through the internet and hurt someone physically? Please explain how to do that. I have several cans of whoop ass I'd like to open up.

Have you considered, in your role as moderator on this board your acceptance of threats of violence against members of this board, the following?

A colleague of yours at your job, with whom you have a policy disagreement, sends an email to you saying that he has a strong desire to reach through the computer and punch you, that your employer would not find that sufficient a threat to terminate his employment.

That national corporations, like those that advertise on this board, don't have internal policies that would lead to the termination of an employee that posted a message directed at another employee that said (I have) ... strong desire to reach through the internet and punch you. What's the standard here? Are board members here allowed to, for example, to say " I (board member who has a policy disagreement of another board member) have a strong desire to through the internet to [sexually violent act] [pronoun to substitute for the name of another board member] [body part of other board member]?

[Lydiaswingert]

Another red herring, Paul. If I have a colleague at work who makes that statement in an email, said colleague actually has the physical ability to punch me in real life. That's not the case here, so the analogy doesn't hold. In this case, the statement is really only a figure of speech, not a genuine threat to you or anyone else.

Surely you must have some concept of literal vs figurative speech?

[IodinkBoilk]

Another red herring, Paul. If I have a colleague at work who makes that statement in an email, said colleague actually has the physical ability to punch me in real life. That's not the case here, so the analogy doesn't hold. In this case, the statement is really only a figure of speech, not a genuine threat to you or anyone else.

Surely you must have some concept of literal vs figurative speech?

Mein gott I thought you said the reason was that one could not actually punch another person through a computer screen. Now you have changed that to one of distance. (unless you are claiming that at your workplace one can actual have actual physical contact with another through their screen?). What is the distance that you can make threats is it feet, yards, miles, across county or state lines, what is your magical distance in which threats can be made, and not punished? Are there any corporations or government bodies that have this magical distance clause in their Employee Handbooks? This is why I included a national corporation (in case you worked for a small employer) in my example, because it is certain that if a person in the Toledo branch office emailed the following (I have) ... strong desire to reach through the internet and punch you. to a colleague in Santa Fe that person would be unlikely to use physical distance as a mitigating factor in his termination process. True he might not have the local police called on him, but as to his immediate suspension pending termination, say bye.

Though it is nice to have you admit that what echinacea said does indeed constitute a threat of violence

[k5wTvu9f]

Okay, I'll play your little game of how-deliberately-obtuse-is-Paul-going-to-be-today?

You said "A colleague of yours at your job...." which most reasonable people would interpret as referring to someone in the same facility. In that scenario, the colleague would absolutely have the ability to physically act on the threat sent in the email. Unless you think echinacea is stalking you and is within striking distance, the "threat" contained in his/her post is clearly a figurative expression, and constitutes NO threat to you whatsoever.

And, with that, I'm done playing your game.

[quack!]

Okay, I'll play your little game of how-deliberately-obtuse-is-Paul-going-to-be-today?

You said "A colleague of yours at your job...." which most reasonable people would interpret as referring to someone in the same facility. In that scenario, the colleague would absolutely have the ability to physically act on the threat sent in the email. Unless you think echinacea is stalking you and is within striking distance, the "threat" contained in his/her post is clearly a figurative expression, and constitutes NO threat to you whatsoever.......

Mon Dieu ! Perhaps you could inquire with your board colleagues (other moderators) if they share the same belief as that of your fictional "reasonable person"? Should be a fairly simple inquiry as you are all moderating from the same facility.

[MwhwF6bp]

Just put you on ignore, for your threat of violence , lets see if the admins have the courage and do the correct thing and say bye to you.

Of course, rather than defending your idiotic comparison, you seize on my overblown metaphor and derail the thread. Not sure what I expected, but it wasn't quite this level of inanity. Lesson learned I guess.

Incident, I do apologize if anything I've said has genuinely upset you (although I doubt it). Surely you realize that I don't know who you are, where you live, nor do I have the resources or desire to obtain such information. Reality aside, even the construction "reaching through the internet" should be a hint that I have no ability to carry out said act. Again, I am sorry for the misunderstanding, and I will do my utmost to refrain from poking my figurative stick at your idiocy in the future.