California governor signs "Dream Act"

#126
#126
droski said:
what? anyone? no. illegals yes. is this really that complicated? your argument is they help more than they hurt. and that is ridiculous.

my wife was born in reseda california and is white. not sure your point.
Click to expand...

was there a "freeway runnin' through the yard"?
 
#127
#127
volinreallife said:
I would guess it would be what americans feel they should get paid for that job.(before they would quit/look for another) A standard rate that is what most companies use for most jobs. Which gives other companies and employees something to go off of when looking for a job.
Click to expand...

and do we currently have that? Is the market allowed to set the wage?
 
#130
#130
KiffinKiller said:
nope. That's what you were looking, correct? /sarcasm btw
Click to expand...

actually it is but I hoped he would realize it. I guess not

volinreallife said:
Yes, but we are talking about jobs that are not unionized and are jobs that a 15 year old kid could do.
Click to expand...

so if the market determines a job picking cabbage is worth $3/hr the employers are allowed to pay that (not talking about under the table stuff)?
 
#131
#131
utvolpj said:
actually it is but I hoped he would realize it. I guess not



so if the market determines a job picking cabbage is worth $3/hr the employers are allowed to pay that (not talking about under the table stuff)?
Click to expand...

modern unions are the bane of my existence.
 
#132
#132
utvolpj said:
actually it is but I hoped he would realize it. I guess not



so if the market determines a job picking cabbage is worth $3/hr the employers are allowed to pay that (not talking about under the table stuff)?
Click to expand...

I was talking about under the table where most are employed. Someone who paints grandma's fence.
 
#133
#133
therealUT said:
Meaningless laws should be meaningless.
Click to expand...

surely you see the problems with this - what you consider meaningful others will consider meaningless and vice versa.

our government has a system for changing laws - ignoring them or randomly enforcing them is not that system
 
#134
#134
volinbham said:
surely you see the problems with this - what you consider meaningful others will consider meaningless and vice versa.

our government has a system for changing laws - ignoring them or randomly enforcing them is not that system
Click to expand...

Getting almost Thelemic up in here.

"Do what thou wilt."
 
#135
#135
volinbham said:
surely you see the problems with this - what you consider meaningful others will consider meaningless and vice versa.

our government has a system for changing laws - ignoring them or randomly enforcing them is not that system
Click to expand...

I do see a problem with this; however, I do not see the problem of not enforcing laws as greater than the problem of having bad laws.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#137
#137
tvolsfan said:
What makes it a bad law?
Click to expand...

It find it to be immoral, as well as inconsistent with the values the Constitution stands for.

Individuals have the inalienable right to wander where they please and work for whomever wishes to hire them (at whatever wage the two freely negotiate).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#138
#138
therealUT said:
It find it to be immoral, as well as inconsistent with the values the Constitution stands for.

Individuals have the inalienable right to wander where they please and work for whomever wishes to hire them (at whatever wage the two freely negotiate).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
I don't find it to be inconsistent with the Constitution that people have to enter a country legally.
 
#139
#139
tvolsfan said:
I don't find it to be inconsistent with the Constitution that people have to enter a country legally.
Click to expand...

IIRC, there are no barriers to entry in the Constitution. There are, however, barriers to citizenship and suffrage.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#140
#140
therealUT said:
IIRC, there are no barriers to entry in the Constitution. There are, however, barriers to citizenship and suffrage.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
So the constitution not specifically mentioning the border is grounds for just letting anyone in? I can't agree with that.
 
#141
#141
therealUT said:
It find it to be immoral, as well as inconsistent with the values the Constitution stands for.

Individuals have the inalienable right to wander where they please and work for whomever wishes to hire them (at whatever wage the two freely negotiate).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

An inalienable right to wander. Missed that one, somewhere.

See many people "wandering" onto military bases of late? How about private golf courses?

Of course, I assume that people can wander into Mexico, too, right?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#142
#142
tvolsfan said:
So the constitution not specifically mentioning the border is grounds for just letting anyone in? I can't agree with that.
Click to expand...

If one wants to uphold the ideal of liberty, then yes. If not, then the US needs to stop referring to itself as the land of the free and some obtuse beacon of freedom for the world.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#143
#143
therealUT said:
If one wants to uphold the ideal of liberty, then yes. If not, then the US needs to stop referring to itself as the land of the free and some obtuse beacon of freedom for the world.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Having rules for immigration doesn't mean the country hates freedom.
 
#144
#144
Tenacious D said:
An inalienable right to wander. Missed that one, somewhere.

See many people "wandering" onto military bases of late? How about private golf courses?

Of course, I assume that people can wander into Mexico, too, right?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

You do not think you have an inalieable right to wander wherever you so desire? I certainly think I do; now, just because some government does not protect nor secure such a right, does not mean it does not exist.

Property owners certainly have the right to lock up or fence in their property; however, moral law will not restrict one from wandering as long as one does no damage to another's property. Civil law, on the other hand, is highly restrictive but cannot automatically be assumed to be moral.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#145
#145
tvolsfan said:
Having rules for immigration doesn't mean the country hates freedom.
Click to expand...

It means that a country is restricting freedom; there had better be a higher moral justification for such an act, else it is immoral and bad law.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#147
#147
tvolsfan said:
Only if the law bars them from ever entering the country legally.
Click to expand...

Not at all; barriers in any manner are inherent restrictions on freedom and there should be compelling moral justifications for such barriers.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#148
#148
therealUT said:
If one wants to uphold the ideal of liberty, then yes. If not, then the US needs to stop referring to itself as the land of the free and some obtuse beacon of freedom for the world.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Where has the federal government decreed this, exactly?

Constitution? Bill of Rights? USSC opinion?


Curious that all of those laws forbidding the illegal entry into our country, now knowing this.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#149
#149
therealUT said:
Not at all; barriers in any manner are inherent restrictions on freedom and there should be compelling moral justifications for such barriers.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

if you object to barriers, then why have borders?
 
#150
#150
therealUT said:
Not at all; barriers in any manner are inherent restrictions on freedom and there should be compelling moral justifications for such barriers.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
That's like saying it's immoral to be against trespassing.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top