Individual Entry

Brass Knuckle Blogs



Useful Links









Add to Technorati Favorites

[Valid RSS]

NucleusCMS
Nucleus CMS v3.24



template by i-marco's choice

Dynamic Drive

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional
Valid CSS


Why Not Pass a Law Banning Customers

by: Konagod

Last week, the town of Riverside, NJ rescinded an ordinance that penalized anyone who employed or rented to an illegal immigrant.

And surprise! It was because businesses suffered after the ordinance was passed.
Within months, hundreds, if not thousands, of recent immigrants from Brazil and other Latin American countries had fled. The noise, crowding and traffic that had accompanied their arrival over the past decade abated.

The law had worked. Perhaps, some said, too well.

With the departure of so many people, the local economy suffered. Hair salons, restaurants and corner shops that catered to the immigrants saw business plummet; several closed. Once-boarded-up storefronts downtown were boarded up again.

[...]

“I don’t think people knew there would be such an economic burden,” said Mayor George Conard, who voted for the original ordinance. “A lot of people did not look three years out.”

I think if you can't look 3 years out as well as expecting the obvious outcome from passing an ordinance such as this, perhaps you don't deserve to be mayor.




52 comments:

Within months, hundreds, if not thousands, of recent immigrants from Brazil and other Latin American countries had fled.

Interesting. When you make it not worth the risk, the illegal aliens don't come or go away. This is what we need to do on a national level. Maybe we could even set up a system where people could come to the U.S. in a legal manner.

Hair salons, restaurants and corner shops that catered to the immigrants saw business plummet

And? Is that what is country has come to? ...an economy based on catering to criminals. Very sad indeed. sad
by: Newbie (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 08:35
an economy based on catering to criminals.

that's what happens when you elect the likes of george w. bush. he has no other base.

p.s. expect $4 a gal gasoline before november.
by: Minstrel Boy (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 11:35
Good afternoon, Newbie.

So, unless you're a Native American, that means all the freedoms embodied in the Constitution were designed to "cater to criminals" who were your ancestors, yes?

Yes, I think so.

Not to worry, though, good man: from what I understand, it's just the brown ones we call criminals nowdays.

Besides, it's not quite A.D. 467 again.

Yet, that is.

The Dark Wraith should probably brush up on his Visigoth grammar, nevertheless.
by: Dark Wraith (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 12:53
apache lessons given free
(along with the finer points of black powder shooting)
by: Minstrel Boy (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 13:28
DW, No, I think not. My ancestors came to this country legally. For those who do not know, that means that they entered this country according to the laws set forth and did not smuggle themselves, swim ashore, trek through the dessert southwest, etc.

it's just the brown ones we call criminals nowdays.

No, I call all criminals criminals. Perhaps you are just unwilling to see the truth for what it is?
by: Newbie (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 14:55
What could you possibly know of "truth," Newbie?

Are you enlightened? Do you see "thing" others cannot? Does God speak to you? How is it that you have come to be a possessor of "truth" in a way that I and billions of other human beings only seek?

Share with us the revelation that has come to you that makes you beyond the mere mortals that inhabit this place? Especially, I'd really like to know how "truth" comes from temporal laws of men who want to ensure by mortal and mean edict that the rights they got, when sought by those of a later generation, make those of that modern era "criminals"?

Is "truth" then wholly dependent upon temporal frame? I think you have, in that stunning representation, Truth Knower, resolutely pierced the veil of error that made everyone from Socrates and Plato to St. Augustine and Kant live miserable lives thinking foolishly as they did that truth was timeless and invariant to the circumstances.

Dear God, Newbie, you're a conseqentialist, aren't you? And you're not just a consequentialist, but a Bentham-esque act-consequentialist: what was lawful—indeed, rightful—for your ancestors deserves treatment as criminality by those here and now who seek the very same thing. Good Heavens, even a rule-consequentialist like John Stuart Mill would have run around in circles hollering, "Ye gods! what have I wrought upon the intellectual tradition of Protestantism?!"

A Right-wing authoritarian follower with a useable core of act-consequentialism rationality. And a truth-knower, at that.

Gracious. And to think people want me to keep you from speaking the truth, here.

The Dark Wraith is simply appalled that some people just can't handle the truth.
by: Dark Wraith (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 15:55
Subtlety is wasted on the stupid.
by: Father Tyme (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 16:34
What could you possibly know of "truth," Newbie?

Is the real world the truth and fact are the same. Around here, things seem to be more blurred. The truth seems to be more of what the reader believes to be fact rather that what is fact.

Are you enlightened? No more than anyone else. Do you see "thing" others cannot? I see nothing that anyone can't. Does God speak to you? Not that I know of. How is it that you have come to be a possessor of "truth" in a way that I and billions of other human beings only seek? I am the possessor of facts. (Facts that anyone of the billions of other human beings also has access to.) As I said before, around here truth is whatever you believe is fact.

Share with us the revelation that has come to you that makes you beyond the mere mortals that inhabit this place? There is none. I am just willing to use facts when I make a point. Especially, I'd really like to know how "truth" comes from temporal laws of men who want to ensure by mortal and mean edict that the rights they got, when sought by those of a later generation, make those of that modern era "criminals"? By this statement, you would seem to disavow all laws since all laws must have a beginning (when they are enacted) and therefore did not apply to those earlier generations. Odd reasoning to be sure.

Is "truth" then wholly dependent upon temporal frame? Yes, at least in this case. It is a fact it is the truth that illegal aliens who are in the US have broken the law. They are criminal in their actions. In a future temporal frame, after GWB passes amnesty, that will no longer be the case.

I think you have, in that stunning representation, Truth Knower, resolutely pierced the veil of error that made everyone from Socrates and Plato to St. Augustine and Kant live miserable lives thinking foolishly as they did that truth was timeless and invariant to the circumstances.

If I did this by calling all criminals criminals, then yes.

Dear God, Newbie, you're a conseqentialist, aren't you? And you're not just a consequentialist, but a Bentham-esque act-consequentialist: what was lawful—indeed, rightful—for your ancestors deserves treatment as criminality by those here and now who seek the very same thing.

I believe that there are laws in this country. These laws are passed by representatives that We The People chose. These laws change over time. They are meant to be followed and enforced. Maybe next year they will be different. Maybe last year they were different. Are we to disregard all laws that have not existed for all eternity?

I am humbled by my new title "truth-knower". I am hardly deserving of such great honor and prestige since anyone has access to fact and that is all I am talking about is fact.

How about this. The word "truth" seems to be a loaded gun around here. Change every time I said "truth" to "fact".

It is just so very amusing to what degree you are willing to go to define truth as independent from fact.
by: Newbie (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 17:27
My ancestors came to this country legally.

danohwideshchinih ilk'idahnajahuygo.
(my ancestors disagree)

belangaana nokah it'hiil
(the white man brought guns)

belangaana nokah khah itah at'ehi
(the white man brought many types of disease)

belangaana leda ila'choo
(the white man spoke lies)

no matter where you live on this continent newbie. there are some original inhabitants who are quite justified in calling your white ancestors illegal aliens

the only proper way for you to atone for these sins is to go immediately to an indian casino and bet your whole paycheck on keno.
by: Minstrel Boy (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 17:41
And it ain't Vegas, Newbie: the slots aren't loose, and neither are the waitresses.

And Wayne Newton isn't on stage, either.

The Dark Wraith misses The Sands.
by: Dark Wraith (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 17:52
no matter where you live on this continent newbie. there are some original inhabitants who are quite justified in calling your white ancestors illegal aliens

If we are being all technical, what were the "original inhabitants" immigration laws back when Europeans showed up? Were there any laws about this?

My ancestors came to this country legally.

When I say this, I am speaking of the current immigration laws at the time of arrival. They followed the laws of the time period.
by: Newbie (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 18:06
The truth seems to be more of what the reader believes to be fact rather that what is fact.
by: Foiled Goil (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 18:25
My ancestors came to this country legally.

Your entire country is illegal, being the product of an illegal rebellion against the Authorities God placed above you. Did you get permission from the British Crown before entering the North American colonies?
by: Phoenician in a time of Romans (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 18:32
Oh, Newbie?

Do you not even understand the difference between "fact" and "truth"?

I suppose in that event it would then be impossible for you to distinguish between "fact" and "perspective," which would then make it utterly impossible for you to delineate "perspective" from "opinion," and that, obviously, would rule out your capacity to note, even in passing, the distinction between "opinion" and "having your head up your butt."

Sheesh. And here I thought you were the Truth Knower.

The Dark Wraith is officially disillusioned... yet, curiously, not disappointed.
by: Dark Wraith (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 20:12
if they settled in the ohio valley, texas, missouri, new mexico, arizona, colorado, washington state, oregon, california, or the dakotas by the laws of the united states they were illegal.

by the laws of the people who were there, they were always illegal.

The Dark Wraith misses The Sands.

me too my friend. me too.
by: Minstrel Boy (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 20:27
"belangaana leda ila'choo
(the white man spoke lies)" -- Minstrel Boy

“They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they kept only one; they promised to take our land, and they did.” -- Red Cloud
by: Peter of Lone Tree (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 20:27
Indian Message To The Moon

When NASA was preparing for the Apollo project, they did some astronaut training on a Navajo Indian reservation.

One day, a Navajo elder and his son were herding sheep and came across the space crew. The old man, who spoke only Navajo, asked a question which his son translated, "What are these guys in the big suits doing?"

A member of the crew said they were practicing for their trip to the moon. The old man got all excited and asked if he could send a message to the moon with the astronauts.

Recognizing a promotional opportunity for the spin-doctors, the NASA folks found a tape recorder. After the old man recorded his message, they asked the son to translate it. He refused.

So the NASA reps brought the tape to the reservation where the rest of the tribe listened and laughed but refused to translate the elder's message to the moon.

Finally, the NASA crew called in an official government translator. He reported that the moon message said, "Watch out for these guys; they have come to steal your land."
by: Foiled Goil (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 20:39
Did you get permission from the British Crown before entering the North American colonies?

No, I was not alive during thing time period and my ancestors were not here at that time either.

And here I thought you were the Truth Knower.

That what your title for me, not mine. I know fact. (not your truth)

by the laws of the people who were there

Interesting. Can you post a link to any of the laws?
by: Newbie (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 21:12
and my ancestors were not here at that time either.

Then clearly, you are hanging your ill-fitting hat on laws created by illegal immigrants, to which you subscribe with vigor.
by: Konagod (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 21:24
Truth supercedes fact, by the way.
by: Konagod (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 21:26
It's a fact that Texas executed the 2oth something die-hard last night.

Truth is, killing is immoral.
by: Konagod (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 21:27
by: Foiled Goil (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 22:38
Yes, I do follow the laws of this country. biggrin
by: Newbie (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 22:38
Gee. They were here illegally apparently...yet they were such an integral economic part of the community that when they packed up and scrammed the whole legal town fell flat on its face.
Kinda makes you go 'hmmmmm.' confused
by: tali (contact) - 26 Sep '07 - 23:22
Good evening, tali.

Indeed. This is one of those rather rare occasions when Git-Tuff-on-Crime butch-heartedness backfires right in the faces of those who Git Tuff.

Git-Tuff-on-Crime more often backfires on other communities—the old point that "crime prevention" is almost always crime displacement, instead—or it backfires temporally as we mortgage the future for feel-good viciousness that alienates those punished, their families, the kids who grow up in the crackdown areas, and the general population, which develops the callous and useless idea that state-sponsored violence is far better than reasoned and well-planned cultivation of citizens and rehabilitation of the socially malevolent. (That is, of course, not to say there aren't folks who should be put away for a long time; but if we're just "putting them away" by the hundreds of thousands, we're most decidedly using a tool that is not even denting the problem of crime.)

Of course, all those prisons we're building are the Right-wing authoritarians' version of big government fiscal stimulus. Same story as the liberals they condemn, except in the modern era, the welfare queens are the cities and towns that learn to live off nothing more than the jobs at the prisons built in their areas.

Same story, different era. Same outcome: in the past, it was continued poverty, but with lots of people dependent upon the welfare state; now, it's continuing, high crime rates, but lots of communities dependent upon the Right-wingers' version of the welfare state.

The Dark Wraith dearly loves the continuity of American socialism.
by: Dark Wraith (contact) - 27 Sep '07 - 00:13
by the laws of the people who were there

Wow, the whole town was abandoned? ...or did you meant that the "shops that catered to the [illegal] immigrants saw business plummet"?

That is like saying that when the police cracked down on bank robbery, the black market sawed-off shotgun industry in took a hit. Oh, the poor sawed-off shotgun industry... Odd logic, indeed. confused

his is one of those rather rare occasions when Git-Tuff-on-Crime butch-heartedness backfires right in the faces of those who Git Tuff.

Not really. It hurt the illegal aliens and also those who support them.
by: Newbie (contact) - 27 Sep '07 - 08:34
Hey asshole, define support. When a person goes into Wal-Mart, does Wal-Mart check their nationality? It would seem that's what you want. Maybe where you go to buy Depends they know you well enough to realize you're just a chronic negative person. Maybe they know you're "legally" here. Did you have to show them your WWII "papers" or other identification when you bought your prune juice with cash? Did they care?
So since you're an American asshole but spend legal money (maybe that came from illegal aliens as well) you support illegals by buying at stores that don't check the nationality of their customers. How embarrassing!
I imagine you buy gas. Maybe the gas station you visit has an illegal alien working there. How does it feel to know that YOU support illegal aliens?

AWwww, bbbuuutt dad. I never said I support illegal aliens. I said "...those who support them." That's these lefties twisting my words again.
But jackass son, you do buy goods at stores that MAY have illegal aliens working there, so you're no better than the people you condemn. That's why they won't play with you , son, because you're a hypocrtical jackass.

One other thing, moron. What is the difference between an illegal alien working for virtually no money here in the U.S. and our businesses outsourcing OUR jobs to other countries where the workers get less money than U.S. citizens working here?

I'm waiting, Lucy.
by: Father Tyme (contact) - 27 Sep '07 - 09:29
in the dems debate last night there was a question about the "sanctuary cities" and whether or not, as president, the candidates would allow them to exist undisturbed. with very little dissent the thing the candidates kept pointing out is that the current state of the laws is insane.

i loved it when mike gravel lambasted the wall builders. the thing is, when the walls are as nuts as they are people will take the measures they need to take for survival. and make no mistake, to deny entry to the folks coming north is a death sentence. death by economic deprivation, death by slow starvation, death by brutal regime.

we have, as a nation, had silly and unenforceble laws before. my own founding favorite, john adams, encouraged the passing of the "alien and sedition" laws which were clearly unconstitutional. he used that law to imprison the grandson of benjamin franklin. the thing was the laws never had the intended effect. people wrote and spoke what they pleased, the memory of a long fight to secure that right was too fresh and they were not ready to stop. we had the same results when we passed laws against alcohol consumption and production. it was an exercise which had the main effect of producing a criminal class and organization which plagues us to this day.

if they pass stupid laws, people will react as they always do when confronted with stupid things. they will find a way around them.

like we say down here on the border

50 foot fence, 51 foot ladder.
by: Minstrel Boy (contact) - 27 Sep '07 - 09:45
define support

Read the original post: "Hair salons, restaurants and corner shops that catered to the immigrants." I am not saying that any ID be checked by anyone, but if you "cater" to illegals, then be prepared to see that business go away when they are run off/ deported/ arrested/ etc.

How does it feel to know that YOU support illegal aliens?

I don't like it and feel that they should be deported if they are here illegally. If I pay more for gas, fresh picked strawberries or have my lawn cut, so be it. I do not think that people, any people, should break the law and just get away with it.

I'm not sure where this whole thing about shopping at stores that employ illegals came from, I was talking about stores that "catered to the immigrants.".
One other thing, moron. What is the difference between an illegal alien working for virtually no money here in the U.S. and our businesses outsourcing OUR jobs to other countries where the workers get less money than U.S. citizens working here?

Easy answer? There are not millions of people who have broken the law walking our streets.
by: Newbie (contact) - 27 Sep '07 - 13:38
"Easy answer? There are not millions of people who have broken the law walking our streets."

So no one ever exceeds the speed limit? No one coasts through stop signs? No one throws cigarette butts onto the ground in public or litters?
Isn't that breaking the law? Of course, your interpretation of the law must be different from the legal one since conservatives seem to interpret law they way they want, not the way it applies.

Wrong again, sphincter breath. But of course you won't admit it. That would show your weakness, eh George?

As DW would ask, provide facts for your comment that there are not millions of people who have broken the law walking our streets. Show me a fact since you're so keen on presenting them, or shut up.
by: Father Tyme (contact) - 27 Sep '07 - 15:20
For the record, Father Tyme:

I will post a reference or link to anything that I state as fact.
~ Newbie, 26 Sep '07 @ 22:41


(*snort!*)
by: Foiled Goil (contact) - 27 Sep '07 - 17:31
FG,
I think the link might have been from "Mad Magazine" or some other definitive source like BIll O'Reilly's Toilet Paper and Falafel Collection. Just can't question that kind of source.

You'll also notice when its kind of ilk doesn't have or can't respond intelligently, it turns to another subject. I asked:
"What is the difference between an illegal alien working for virtually no money here in the U.S. and our businesses outsourcing OUR jobs to other countries where the workers get less money than U.S. citizens working here?"

Its response was in no way any kind of answer. Its response might have been as ludicrous as "Footballs don't have feathers."
by: Vater-Zeit (contact) - 27 Sep '07 - 18:43
Vater-Zeit, biggrin

Antworten!? überrascht?! razz
by: Foiled Goil (contact) - 27 Sep '07 - 19:22
Sometimes. It's all Greek to me, anyway.
by: Χρόνος (contact) - 27 Sep '07 - 19:31
Damn thing didn't all appear.

Χρόνος πατέρων
by: FT (contact) - 27 Sep '07 - 19:32
Forget Greek! Yoi!
by: Время (contact) - 27 Sep '07 - 19:33
FT,

Beware of geeks bearing gifs? wink
by: Foiled Goil (contact) - 27 Sep '07 - 20:29
Who you callin' a gif?
by: Father Tyme (contact) - 27 Sep '07 - 21:07
Sorry, redface that was a typo!!! I meant to say:

Beware of geeks, bare in GIFs. ing7

(See? Typos do change some things! razz )
by: Foiled Goil (contact) - 27 Sep '07 - 21:40
The Dark Wraith long ago abandoned all hope of getting this crew on the Charlie Rose show.
by: Dark Wraith (contact) - 27 Sep '07 - 22:26
So no one ever exceeds the speed limit? No one coasts through stop signs?

Yes they do and they deserve to be punished for that illegal act. Are you trying to make a point that breaking the law in s good thing? that it is acceptable?

Of course, your interpretation of the law must be different from the legal one since conservatives seem to interpret law they way they want, not the way it applies.

I interpret the law as it is written. That way there is no error. It is illegal to enter this country in an undocumented shipping crate. It is illegal to ignore traffic control signs. etc...

Wrong again, sphincter breath. Wrong about what?

provide facts for your comment that there are not millions of people who have broken the law walking our streets.

I know that these will be discounted because they support what I have said. Here are a few from the first page google gave me. Some are older, yet even years ago, there were millions of illegal aliens in the U.S.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312900
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0123/p01s01-ussc.html
http://www.cis.org/articles/1997/IR28/5million.html

I will post a reference or link to anything that I state as fact.

I will and I won't even use profanity or call you any names.

"What is the difference between an illegal alien working for virtually no money here in the U.S. and our businesses outsourcing OUR jobs to other countries where the workers get less money than U.S. citizens working here?"

I changed no subject. I answered your question. Or, was this the setup of a joke? In the former, there are people in this country who have broken the law in order to be here and are not punished for it. In the latter, there are NOT people in this country who have broken the law. Pretty simple. Can you not understand it?
by: Newbie (contact) - 27 Sep '07 - 22:39
You gave an answer, but not one to the question asked.
"What is the difference between an illegal alien working for virtually no money here in the U.S. and our businesses outsourcing OUR jobs to other countries where the workers get less money than U.S. citizens working here?"


"Easy answer? There are not millions of people who have broken the law walking our streets."

And the links you gave relate to this "answer" you gave... how?
by: Foiled Goil (contact) - 27 Sep '07 - 22:59
The links I gave talked about the 5-12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. (depending on the source and date) as per request of Father Tyme.
by: Newbie (contact) - 27 Sep '07 - 23:04
eek Sheesh, Neo-bee. Do you even read what you type?
As DW would ask, provide facts for your comment that there are not millions of people who have broken the law walking our streets. Show me a fact since you're so keen on presenting them, or shut up.
~ Father Tyme, 27 Sep '07 @ 15:20
by: Foiled Goil (contact) - 27 Sep '07 - 23:14
Wraith,

Are you going to change the Off-Topic policy?
by: Foiled Goil (contact) - 27 Sep '07 - 23:29
other than to state that you believed that laws made in europe during the colonial period and then in washington during our imperial expansion in your eyes trumped both the fact that the native people were in place, on the land, when the americans invaded you never gave either an acceptable moral or legal response to my first challenge.

so, if in your eyes the laws your ancestors claim to be the imperitives when they invaded the land of my ancestors is both legally and morally superior, all i got to say is

fucking damn your eyes asshole.
(and they wonder why we loved scalpings so fucking much)
by: Minstrel Boy (contact) - 28 Sep '07 - 00:42
Could nobody find a link to the American Indian Immigration laws that were on the books when the Europeans came to North America?
by: Newbie (contact) - 28 Sep '07 - 11:43
M' Boy,

"...in your eyes the laws your ancestors claim to be the imperitives when they invaded the land of my ancestors... "

Perhaps Neo-bee's ancestors entered this country in a documented shipping crate?

razz
by: Foiled Goil (contact) - 28 Sep '07 - 14:28
the "intellectuals" and the artists are always the first ones rounded up when a nation is trying to seamlessly consolidate power. That would still be illegal.
by: Newbie (contact) - 28 Sep '07 - 14:55
Guess that confirms what we always thought and that os you are no intellectual, nobbin.
by: Father Tyme (contact) - 28 Sep '07 - 15:14
Vater,

Yep, he's no intellectual! sup

And he's quoting from another post!!! Talk about a disconnection from the real world!
by: Foiled Goil (contact) - 28 Sep '07 - 16:25
Need a break from newbies incessant mewings? Visit cracked.com. Their lists of the (fill in the number) of best/worst, etc things is funny.
by: Father Tyme (contact) - 28 Sep '07 - 17:49



This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it
«Return to the Main Page of Big Brass Blog

Meta Information:

Title: Why Not Pass a Law Banning Customers
Date posted: 25 Sep '07 - 21:38
No Trackbacks
Filed under: Immigration
I Like This: 3 (vote)
Next entry: » Warren Jeffs Convicted
Previous entry: « Bush Chutzpah At The U. N.

Frontpage
:
:

Navigation

  Today
  Archives
  Contact

Calendar

«  May 2013  »
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Search


Blog Headlines

Advertisements

Dark Wraith's Bookstore

♦           ♦           ♦
Free Sound Effects
Download Free Sound Effects from AudioMicro.
♦           ♦           ♦

News

Diversions

In the News

Quote of the Day